MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113117872 · doi:10.3390/polym12122983

An In-Silico Pipeline for Rapid Screening of DNA Aptamers against Mycotoxins: The Case-Study of Fumonisin B1, Aflatoxin B1 and Ochratoxin A

2020· article· en· W3113117872 on OpenAlexaff
Fulvio Ciriaco, Vincenzo De Leo, Lucia Catucci, Michelangelo Pascale, Antonio Logrieco, Maria C. DeRosa, Annalisa De Girolamo

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAptamerMicroscale thermophoresisOchratoxin AIn silicoAflatoxinSystematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichmentOchratoxinOligonucleotideMycotoxinChemistryComputational biologyFumonisinFumonisin B1DNACombinatorial chemistryBiologyBiochemistryMolecular biologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aptamers are single-stranded oligonucleotides selected by SELEX (Systematic Evolution of Ligands by EXponential Enrichment) able to discriminate target molecules with high affinity and specificity, even in the case of very closely related structures. Aptamers have been produced for several targets including small molecules like mycotoxins; however, the high affinity for their respective target molecules is a critical requirement. In the last decade, the screening through computational methods of aptamers for their affinity against specific targets has greatly increased and is becoming a commonly used procedure due to its convenience and low costs. This paper describes an in-silico approach for rapid screening of ten ssDNA aptamer sequences against fumonisin B1 (FB1, n = 3), aflatoxin B1 (AFB1, n = 2) and ochratoxin A (OTA, n = 5). Theoretical results were compared with those obtained by testing the same aptamers by fluorescent microscale thermophoresis and by magnetic beads assay for their binding affinity (KD) revealing a good agreement.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207