A theoretical study of the possible use of electroosmotic flow to extend the read length of DNA sequencing by end‐labeled free solution electrophoresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End-labeled free solution electrophoresis (ELFSE) provides a means of separating DNA with free-solution CE, eliminating the need for gels and polymer solutions which increase the run time and can be difficult to load into a capillary. In free-solution electrophoresis, DNA is normally free-draining and all fragments reach the detector at the same time, whereas ELFSE uses an uncharged label molecule attached to each DNA fragment in order to render the electrophoretic mobility size-dependent. With ELFSE, however, the larger molecules are not separated enough (limiting the read length in the case of ssDNA sequencing) while the smaller ones are overseparated; the larger ones are too fast while the shorter ones are too slow, which is the opposite of traditional gel-based methods. In this article, we show how an EOF could be used to overcome these problems and extend the DNA sequencing read length of ELFSE. This counterflow would allow the larger, previously unresolved molecules more time to separate and thereby increase the read length. Through our theoretical investigation, we predict that an EOF mobility of approximately the same magnitude as that of unlabeled DNA would provide the best results for the regime where all molecules move in the same direction. Even better resolution would be possible for smaller values of EOF which allow different directions of migration; however, the migration times then would become too large. The flow would need to be well controlled since the gain in read length decreases as the magnitude of the counterflow increases; an EOF mobility double that of unlabeled DNA would no longer increase the read length, although ELFSE would still benefit from a reduction in migration time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".