MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468025291 · doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02117

Analysis of DNA in Phosphate Buffered Saline Using Kinetic Capillary Electrophoresis

2016· article· en· W2468025291 on OpenAlexafffund
Mirzo Kanoatov, Sergey N. Krylov

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryCapillary electrophoresisChromatographyPhosphateElectrophoresisPhosphate buffered salineDNACapillary actionBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kinetic capillary electrophoresis (KCE) methods are useful in the study of kinetics and equilibrium properties of interactions between DNA and its binding partners (ligands). KCE experiments are typically performed in a narrow set of "conventional" low-conductivity run buffers while DNA-ligand interactions in biological systems occur in physiological fluids, characterized by high ionic strengths. The nature and ionic strength of the buffer, in which DNA-ligand interaction occurs, can significantly influence the binding. Therefore, KCE experiments meant to study such interactions would greatly benefit if they could be performed in physiological buffers, such as phosphate buffered saline (PBS). No previous KCE studies of DNA used PBS as the run buffer. Here, we test the feasibility of using PBS as a KCE run buffer for analysis of DNA and show that its usage under standard KCE conditions renders DNA undetectable. We uncover the causes of this previously unreported detrimental effect and come up with a modification of KCE which allows one to overcome it. We apply the modified KCE method to an experimental model of a platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) protein and its DNA aptamer, which was selected in PBS, and show that the results obtained in PBS run buffer are much closer to previously reported values than those which were obtained with a conventional low-conductivity capillary electrophoresis (CE) buffer.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207