MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550847225 · doi:10.3390/toxins8110336

Comparison of In-Solution Biorecognition Properties of Aptamers against Ochratoxin A

2016· article· en· W2550847225 on OpenAlexafffund
Maureen McKeague, Ranganathan Velu, Annalisa De Girolamo, Stefania Valenzano, Michelangelo Pascale, McKenzie Smith, Maria C. DeRosa

Bibliographic record

VenueToxins · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAptamerOchratoxin AMycotoxinNucleic acidChemistryOchratoxinComputational biologyBiologyBiochemistryFood scienceMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

and frequently found as a natural contaminant in a wide range of food commodities. Novel and robust biorecognition agents for detecting this molecule are required. Aptamers are artificial nucleic acid ligands able to bind with high affinity and specificity to a given target molecule. In the last few years, three separate research groups have selected aptamers for ochratoxin A. While each of these three families of aptamers have been incorporated into various methods for detecting OTA, it is unclear if each aptamer candidate is better suited for a particular application. Here, we perform the first head-to-head comparison of solution-based binding parameters for these groups of aptamers. Based on our results, we provide recommendations for the appropriate choice of aptamer for incorporation into solution-based biorecognition assays and applications.

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)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxinsSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207