MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809649622 · doi:10.1038/s41541-018-0067-3

Selection and evaluation of an efficient method for the recovery of viral nucleic acids from complex biologicals

2018· article· en· W2809649622 on OpenAlexaff
S. Sathiamoorthy, Rebecca J. Malott, Lucy Gisonni-Lex, Siemon H. S. Ng

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Vaccines · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
FundersSanofi PasteurSanofi
KeywordsNucleic acidDNABiologyDNA extractionRNAComputational biologyPolymerase chain reactionVirologyMolecular biologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is a need for a broad and efficient testing strategy for the detection of both known and novel viral adventitious agents in vaccines and biologicals. High-throughput sequencing (HTS) is an approach for such testing; however, an optimized testing method is one with a sample-processing pipeline that can help detect any viral adventitious agent that may be present. In this study, 11 commercial methods were assessed for efficient extraction of nucleic acids from a panel of viruses. An extraction strategy with two parallel arms, consisting of both the Invitrogen PureLink™ Virus RNA/DNA kit for total nucleic acid extraction and the Wako DNA Extractor® kit with an RNase A digestion for enrichment of double-stranded nucleic acid, was selected as the strategy for the extraction of all viral nucleic acid types (ssRNA, dsRNA, and dsDNA). Downstream processes, such as double-strand DNA synthesis and whole-genome amplification (WGA), were also assessed for the retrieval of viral sequences. Double-stranded DNA synthesis yielded larger numbers of viral reads, whereas WGA exhibited a strong bias toward amplification of double-stranded DNA, including host cellular DNA. The final sample-processing strategy consisted of the dual extraction approach followed by double-stranded DNA synthesis, which yielded a viral population with increased detection of some viruses by 8600-fold. Here we describe an efficient extraction procedure to support viral adventitious agent detection in cell substrates used for biological products using HTS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj VaccinesSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207