MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559860295 · doi:10.1039/c6lc01182a

On-chip integration of droplet microfluidics and nanostructure-initiator mass spectrometry for enzyme screening

2016· article· en· W2559860295 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Heinemann, Kai Deng, Steve C. C. Shih, Jian Gao, Paul D. Adams, Anup K. Singh, Trent R. Northen

Bibliographic record

VenueLab on a Chip · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersBiological and Environmental Research
KeywordsMicrofluidicsMass spectrometryChemistryNanotechnologyNanostructureBioconjugationGlycoside hydrolaseChromatographyEnzymeMaterials scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological assays often require expensive reagents and tedious manipulations. These shortcomings can be overcome using digitally operated microfluidic devices that require reduced sample volumes to automate assays. One particular challenge is integrating bioassays with mass spectrometry based analysis. Towards this goal we have developed μNIMS, a highly sensitive and high throughput technique that integrates droplet microfluidics with nanostructure-initiator mass spectrometry (NIMS). Enzyme reactions are carried out in droplets that can be arrayed on discrete NIMS elements at defined time intervals for subsequent mass spectrometry analysis, enabling time resolved enzyme activity assay. We apply the μNIMS platform for kinetic characterization of a glycoside hydrolase enzyme (CelE-CMB3A), a chimeric enzyme capable of deconstructing plant hemicellulose into monosaccharides for subsequent conversion to biofuel. This study reveals NIMS nanostructures can be fabricated into arrays for microfluidic droplet deposition, NIMS is compatible with droplet and digital microfluidics, and can be used on-chip to assay glycoside hydrolase enzyme in vitro.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations57
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLab on a ChipSame topicInnovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationFrench-language works237,207