MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2425371953 · doi:10.1385/0-89603-229-9:73

Preparation, Manipulation, and Pulse Strategy for One-Dimensional Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis (ODPFGE)

2003· article· en· W2425371953 on OpenAlexaff
Jaan Noolandi, Chantal Turmel

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsXerox (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgarosePulsed-field gel electrophoresisGel electrophoresisElectrophoresisGel electrophoresis of nucleic acidsDNAAgarose gel electrophoresisChemistryMembraneChromatographySpark plugMaterials scienceBiophysicsBiochemistryBiologyPhysicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The preparation and manipulation of very large DNA molecules for pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) requires more care than normally used for smaller molecules. The general protocol used is the preparation of DNA directly in solid agarose blocks (plugs) or beads. Intact cells are encapsidated in agarose (plugs or beads) and are treated with different combinations of enzymes and detergent to remove cell walls, membranes, RNA, proteins, and other materials in order to obtain naked DNA. This is possible because detergent and enzymes can diffuse by Brownian motion through the agarose pores of the plug, whereas the large pieces of DNA cannot and remain sequestered inside the plug. Here, we give detailed protocols of preparation for yeast and mammalian DNA. In addition, we describe the power supplies, switchers, gels, and gel trays required for one-dimensional pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (ODPFGE), as well as the pulse strategies used for the separations.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207