Concentration of sodium dodecyl sulfate used in occlusion body extraction affects Spodoptera littoralis nucleopolyhedrovirus biological activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficacy of a baculovirus as a biological control agent is evaluated according to biological parameters, median lethal dose (LD_{50}) of the virus, and median lethal time (LT_{50}) of infected larvae. Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) is commonly used in concentrations of 0.1%-1% to extract infective units of the baculoviruses, occlusion bodies (OBs), from infected cadavers. Although several studies have shown disruption of OB structure by SDS, the effects of SDS concentrations on baculovirus biological parameters are not well known. Indeed, it is essential to detect the optimum SDS concentration for OB extraction to compare the activity of baculoviruses accurately. In our study, the effects of SDS (0.1%-2%) on baculoviral biological activity were examined using Spodoptera littoralis nucleopolyhedrovirus in third instar Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. Use of 1% SDS in OB extraction caused the lowest LD_{50}, while higher concentrations than 1% significantly increased the LD_{50}. The differences between LT_{50} values at 0.1%-1% SDS were found to be insignificant; however, higher concentrations (>1.0%) caused significant loss of biological activity. Therefore, 0.1%-1.0% SDS could be used for OB extraction; however, evaluation of LD_{50} and LT_{50} values together suggests that 1% SDS provides the best biological activity. The mode of action of SDS on baculovirus biological activity is discussed further.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".