MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318950591 · doi:10.1021/bm2017405

Effects of Temperature and Relative Humidity on the Stability of Paper-Immobilized Antibodies

2012· article· en· W2318950591 on OpenAlexaff
Jingyun Wang, Brian Ka Fung Yiu, Jaclyn M. Obermeyer, Carlos D. M. Filipe, John D. Brennan, Robert Pelton

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomacromolecules · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelative humidityChemistryEpichlorohydrinAntibodyPolyamideChemical engineeringChemical stabilityChromatographyPolymer chemistryOrganic chemistryThermodynamicsImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stability of a paper-immobilized antibody was investigated over a range of temperatures (40-140 °C) and relative humidities (RH, 30-90%) using both unmodified filter paper and the same paper impregnated with polyamide-epichlorohydrin (PAE) as supports. Antibody stability decreased with increasing temperature, as expected, but also decreased with increasing RH. At 40 °C, the half-life was more than 10 days, with little dependence on RH. However, at 80 °C, the half-life varied from ~3 days at low RH to less than half an hour at 90% RH, demonstrating that hydration of the antibody promotes unfolding. Antibody stability was not influenced by the PAE paper surface treatment. This work shows that antibodies are good candidates for development of bioactive paper as they have sufficient stability at high temperature to withstand printing and other roll-to-roll processing steps, and sufficient low temperature stability to allow long-term storage of bioactive paper materials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations67
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomacromoleculesSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207