MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120946080 · doi:10.1002/elsc.201000132

Extraction of nucleic acids from bacterial spores using bead‐based mechanical lysis on a plastic chip

2011· article· en· W2120946080 on OpenAlexaff
Matthias Geißler, Julie A. Beauregard, Isabelle Charlebois, Sandra Isabel, François Normandin, B. Voisin, Maurice Boissinot, Michel G. Bergeron, Teodor Veres

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering in Life Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLysisNucleic acidExtraction (chemistry)Materials scienceDNA extractionDNAMatrix (chemical analysis)BeadChromatographyChemistryComposite materialPolymerase chain reactionBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes an experimentally simple and efficient way of integrating bead‐based mechanical cell lysis on a plastic chip. The chip is fabricated from machined slides of poly(methylmethacrylate) and accommodates a metal disk along with solid microbeads in a designated lysis chamber. Magnetic actuation of the metal disk induces collisions and frictional forces within the lysis matrix causing cell disruption. The efficiency of nucleic acid extraction was investigated using spores of Bacillus atrophaeus subsp. globigii and the amount of genomic DNA in the lysates has been quantified by real‐time PCR. Compared to a standardized DNA extraction method based on BD GeneOhm ™ Lysis Kit, the yield was dependent on the composition of the lysis matrix, including size and relative amount of microbeads, along with instrumental parameters, such as duration and frequency of agitation. The interplay of these parameters should allow for optimizing lysis protocols to faithfully disrupt any particular type of cell without affecting the genetic material to be extracted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering in Life SciencesSame topicMicrofluidic and Bio-sensing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207