MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621138983 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03009-z

Detection of DNA Amplicons of Polymerase Chain Reaction Using Litmus Test

2017· article· en· W2621138983 on OpenAlexafffund
Dingran Chang, Kha Tram, Ben Li, Zhifa Shen, Christine H. Lee, Bruno J. Salena, Yingfu Li

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAmpliconPolymerase chain reactionLitmusClostridium difficileMultiplex polymerase chain reactionDNAUreaseChemistryMicrobiologyBiologyVirologyEnzymeBiochemistryAntibioticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a new colorimetric DNA detection method that takes advantage of the power of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and the simplicity of the classic litmus test. The strategy makes use of a modified set of primers for PCR to facilitate ensuing manipulations of resultant DNA amplicons: their tagging with urease and immobilization onto magnetic beads. The amplicon/urease-laden beads are then used to hydrolyze urea, resulting in the increase of pH that can be conveniently reported by a pH-sensitive dye. We have successfully applied this strategy for the detection of two hypervirulent strains of the bacterium Clostridium difficile that are responsible for the recent increase in the global incidence and severity of C. difficile infections. Furthermore, the viability of this test for diagnostic applications is demonstrated using clinically validated stool samples from C. difficile infected patients.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207