MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553712893 · doi:10.1039/c6lc01258b

Digital DNA detection based on a compact optofluidic laser with ultra-low sample consumption

2016· article· en· W2553712893 on OpenAlexaff
Wonsuk Lee, Qiushu Chen, Xudong Fan, Dong Ki Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersDivision of Electrical, Communications and Cyber SystemsNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningNational Research FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAnalyteDNAOptoelectronicsLaserDigital polymerase chain reactionMaterials scienceNanotechnologyOpticsPhysicsChemistryPolymerase chain reactionChromatographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA lasers self-amplify optical signals from a DNA analyte as well as thermodynamic differences between sequences, allowing quasi-digital DNA detection. However, these systems have drawbacks, such as relatively large sample consumption and complicated dye labelling. Moreover, although the lasing signal can detect the target DNA, it is superimposed on an unintended fluorescence background, which persists for non-target DNA samples as well. From an optical point of view, it is thus not truly digital detection and requires spectral analysis to identify the target. In this work, we propose and demonstrate an optofluidic laser that has a single layer of DNA molecules as the gain material. A target DNA produces intensive laser emission comparable to existing DNA lasers, while any unnecessary fluorescence background is successfully suppressed. As a result, the target DNA can be detected with a single laser pulse, in a truly digital manner. Since the DNA molecules cover only a single layer on the surface of the laser microcavity, the DNA sample consumption is a few orders of magnitude lower than that of existing DNA lasers. Furthermore, the DNA molecules are stained by simply immersing the microcavity in the intercalating dye solution, and thus the proposed DNA laser is free of any complex dye-labelling process prior to analysis.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicSpectroscopy and Quantum Chemical StudiesFrench-language works237,207