MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044887449 · doi:10.1039/d0an01050b

Developing a toll-like receptor biosensor for Gram-positive bacterial detection and its storage strategies

2020· article· en· W3044887449 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer F. McLeod, Chankyu Park, Alexandra Cunningham, Lynne O'Donnell, R. Stephen Brown, F. M. Kelly, Zhe She

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiosensors and Analytical Detection
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsTollToll-like receptorBiosensorPathogenAnalyteMicrobiologyBacteriaChemistryBiologyReceptorChromatographyInnate immune systemImmunologyBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biorecognition ability of hybridized toll-like receptors (TLRs) 2 and 6 proteins on electrode surfaces has been studied. TLR biosensors have been designed to be non-specific to particular bacterial strains but rather to provide broad spectrum detection of cells and toxins containing relevant pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). Our electrochemical TLR2/6 biosensors demonstrated selective detection towards Gram-positive bacterial whole-cells and a synthetic diacylated lipopeptide (Pam2CSK4), a PAMP. Responses towards Bacillus licheniformis (B. licheniformis) and Enterococcus hirae (E. hirae) were obtained. The biosensor was able to differentiate signals between B. licheniformis and a Gram-negative bacterial cell (control) as low as 100 CFU mL-1. One challenge in developing protein-based biosensors is to improve the shelf-life of the biosensor chips and preserve the detection activity of the protein molecules, therefore we did our first exploration into storage conditions. The activity of stored biosensors was found to be strongly dependent on storage medium, and that effective 'shelf-life' was obtained makes an important step towards creating robust sensors for real-life 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicBiosensors and Analytical DetectionFrench-language works237,207