MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164522621 · doi:10.1261/rna.1235109

Characterizing multiple exogenous and endogenous small RNA populations in parallel with subfemtomolar sensitivity using a streptavidin gel-shift assay

2009· article· en· W2164522621 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Alexander Ebhardt, Peter J. Unrau

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCAlberta Cancer FoundationCancer Research Institute
KeywordsBiologyRNABiotinylationStreptavidinMolecular biologyOligonucleotideBiochemistryDNABiotinGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here we present a simple and inexpensive gel-shift assay for the detection and quantification of small RNAs. The assay is at least 5-10 times more sensitive than a conventional Northern, and is highly scalable. Total RNA is first size purified to enrich the desired size range, phosphatase treated, and then radiolabeled to high specific activity using polynucleotide kinase. The resulting RNA stock is then hybridized to an excess of biotinylated DNA probe oligonucleotide, prior to mixing with streptavidin and loading on a native gel. The amount of supershifted material was proportional to the amount of labeled target RNA in the sample. We applied this method to verify sequencing data originally obtained from a four-point comparison study on the effect of endogenous expression of HC-Pro on Y-satellite/cucumber mosaic virus infection in tobacco plants. The results of the streptavidin gel-shift assay were consistent with the concentrations of small RNA infected plants inferred by our original cloning data, and rapidly provided information about the relative concentration of a number of viral and endogenous small RNAs. Further straightforward improvements to this simple methodology might be expected to improve the methods sensitivity by as much as another 10-fold.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNASame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207