Effect of sample storage time on detection of hybridization signals in Checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term sample storage can affect the intensity of the hybridization signals provided by molecular diagnostic methods that use chemiluminescent detection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different storage times on the hybridization signals of 13 bacterial species detected by the Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method using whole-genomic DNA probes. Ninety-six subgingival biofilm samples were collected from 36 healthy subjects, and the intensity of hybridization signals was evaluated at 4 different time periods: (1) immediately after collecting (n = 24) and (2) after storage at -20 °C for 6 months (n = 24), (3) for 12 months (n = 24), and (4) for 24 months (n = 24). The intensity of hybridization signals obtained from groups 1 and 2 were significantly higher than in the other groups (p < 0.001). No differences were found between groups 1 and 2 (p > 0.05). The Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method was suitable to detect hybridization signals from all groups evaluated, and the intensity of signals decreased significantly after long periods of sample storage.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".