MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2375038087

Quantitative analysis of phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase in genetically modified herbicide tolerant pepper by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

2007· article· en· W2375038087 on OpenAlexaff
Youn-Young Shim, Weon‐Sun Shin, Gi‐Seong Moon, Kyunghwan Kim

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant tissue culture and regeneration
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPepperRecombinant DNAMolecular biologyGenetically modified organismEscherichia coliAcetyltransferaseEnzymeImmunoassayBiologyHistidineDetection limitWestern blotChemistryGeneChromatographyBiochemistryAntibodyGeneticsHorticulture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An immunoassay method was developed to quantitatively detect phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase (PAT) encoded by the Bialaphos resistance (bar) gene in genetically modified (GM) pepper. The histidine-tagged PAT was overexpressed in Escherichia coli M15 (pQE31-bar) and efficiently purified by Ni2+ affinity chromatography. A developed sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (S-ELISA) method (detection limit: 0.01 microg/ml) was 100-fold more sensitive than a competitive indirect ELISA (CI-ELISA) method or Western blot analysis in detecting the recombinant PAT. In real sample tests, PAT in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) peppers was successfully quantified [4.9 +/- 0.4 microg/g of sample (n = 6)] by the S-ELISA method. The S-ELISA method developed here could be applied to other GMHT crops and vegetables producing PAT.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicPlant tissue culture and regeneration→French-language works237,207→