MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254852075 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/88.6.1741

Improved Method for the Determination of Anatoxin-a and Two of Its Metabolites in Blue-Green Algae Using Liquid Chromatography with Fluorescence Detection

2005· article· en· W2254852075 on OpenAlexaff
Dorothea F.K. Rawn, Benjamin P-Y Lau, Barbara Niedzwiadek, James F. Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Toxins and Detection Methods
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatographyBlue green algaeChemistryFluorescenceAlgaeCyanobacteriaBotanyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatoxin-a, a neurotoxin produced by blue-green algae (BGA) species, can cause death to exposed organisms. In North America, BGA are harvested and sold as food supplements, some of which contain elevated levels of other algal toxins, such as microcystins. Concern that elevated levels of anatoxin-a also may be present in BGA food supplements has led to the development of a simple method to determine the presence of anatoxin-a in BGA. Some researchers have successfully analyzed this compound using liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection by forming a fluorescent derivative with 4-fluoro-7-nitrobenzofurazan (NBD-F) in water and phytoplankton extracts. With this method, the background noise is high in BGA extracts due to the presence of co-extractives. Addition of o-phthaldialdehyde (OPA) and mercaptoethanol to the extract before addition of the NBD-F resulted in the successful removal of primary amines from the background noise when the NBD-F derivatives were detected with fluorescence. Improved chromatograms were obtained when extracts were cleaned up in this manner, leading to a lower detection limit (approximately 50 microg/kg) for anatoxin-a. The detection limits obtained for the 2 degradation products dihydroanatoxin-a and epoxyanatoxin-a in BGA extracts were similarly low (55 and 65 microg/kg, respectively).

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)0.001
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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicMarine Toxins and Detection MethodsFrench-language works237,207