Are other fluorescent tags used instead of ethidium bromide safer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethidium bromide (EtBr) is a well-known fluorescent tag usually applied in molecular biological techniques like agarose gel electrophoresis. The mechanism of action for such compounds is known, in which these compounds are able to bind to the kinetoplastid DNA and to alter their conformation to Z-DNA molecules that stop replication of kinetoplastid DNA leading to Trypanosoma death. Although the usual amounts used in laboratories are considered as below the level required to cause toxicity (LD50 in oral administration in rat is 1.5 g/Kg), the mentioned concentrations are high enough to involve in replication of mitochondrial DNA in some human cell lines. Regarding the points that EtBr is very stable in the environment and if degraded especially by use of bleaches that result in formation of mutagenic compounds, there is a big concern about its use. Although application of EtBr is going to be restricted and replaced with other tags such as SYBR® products, the safety of the new substituted compounds are still in doubt and except a few data, there is no essential evidence available to confirm that they are safer than EtBr. Further investigations are recommended to compare their relative biosafety hazards.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".