Assessing PCR Inhibition from Humic Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibition remains the greatest methodological challenge in molecular analysis of buried biological remains.Inhibitory compounds associated with soil environments comprise primarily of humic acids and fulvic acids, collectively referred to as humic substances.We examined the sensitivity of 13 DNA polymerases to both humic acids (11ng-110 g) and fulvic acids (9.4ng-94 g) and the concentration at which successful amplification can be achieved.This research identified that all 13 DNA polymerases tested exhibited inhibition with varying concentrations of humic acids and that 5 out of the 13 DNA polymerase tested exhibited inhibition with varying concentrations of fulvic acid.The most tolerant DNA polymerase to inhibition due to the presence of humic and fulvic acids is pfu DNA polymerase followed by KlenTaq ® LA DNA polymerase and RealTaq DNA polymerase that were both only inhibited by 11 g and 110 g of humic acids.In addition, we present the use of size exclusion chromatography to remove small molecular weight humic substance, dramatically increasing the success of molecular analysis on material associated with burial.This research has implications to the fields of environmental microbiology, soil science, forensic science and archaeological science.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".