MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136599224 · doi:10.1562/2004-09-02-ra-301.1

Molecular Beacon Probes of Photodamage in Thymine and Uracil Oligonucleotides¶

2005· article· en· W2136599224 on OpenAlexaff
Soujanya Yarasi, Cheryl McConachie, Glen R. Loppnow

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemistry and Photobiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUracilMolecular beaconThymineOligonucleotideChemistryPhotobiologyVisibilityBiologyBiochemistryPhysicsDNAOpticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular beacons (MB) are becoming more common as sequence-selective detectors of nucleic acids. Although they can easily detect single-base mismatches, they have never been used to directly detect DNA or RNA damage. To measure the degree of ultraviolet (UV) light damage in oligonucleotides, we report a novel MB approach for general detection of photoproducts in UV-irradiated rU17 and dT17 oligonucleotides. With monochromatic UV light irradiation at ca 280 nm under anoxic conditions, the oligonucleotide absorption decays with a single-exponential time constant of 123+/-1 min for rU17 and with double-exponential time constants of 78+/-0.5 min (99%) and 180+/-5 min (0.05%) for dT17 oligonucleotides. Under the same conditions, the MB fluorescence decays more quickly, with single-exponential time constants of 19+/-2 and 26+/-3 min for rU17 and dT17, respectively. Similar kinetics were observed with broadband UV light irradiation of oligonucleotides. The differences in the UV damage kinetics of dT17 and rU17 and their detection by absorption and fluorescence techniques will be discussed in the context of differential instabilities introduced in the nucleic acid-MB duplex by the different photoproducts formed.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemistry and PhotobiologySame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207