MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534400021 · doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.6b03122

Modeling and Optimization of Protein PEGylation

2016· article· en· W2534400021 on OpenAlex
Xiaojiao Shang, Brandon Corbett, Brian Macdonald, Prashant Mhaskar, Raja Ghosh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein purification and stability
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPEGylationPolyethylene glycolPEG ratioProcess (computing)ChemistryComputer scienceProcess optimizationBiological systemChemical engineeringOrganic chemistryEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A PEGylated protein is prepared by conjugating polyethylene glycol (or PEG) with the protein, a process known as PEGylation. Most PEGylation processes lead to synthesis of different PEGylated forms of the protein, among which only one form is typically of interest. In this work, we propose a modeling and optimization-based approach for determining optimal operating conditions for protein PEGylation. To this end, a first-principles model is proposed and targeted experiments are carried out to estimate the model parameters. A simulation-based optimization is then carried out to suggest the best operating conditions. Specifically, results suggest that to maximize the concentration of mono-PEGylated product, the reaction should be carried out at high pH and with a high ratio of PEG to protein. Subsequent experiments are conducted to confirm the validity of the modeling and optimization approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.245 · 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