MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210771143 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2021-0238

Bacterial cell wall quantification by a modified low-volume Nelson–Somogyi method and its use with different sugars

2022· article· en· W4210771143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thelma Arenas, Aurora Osorio, Luis David Ginez, Laura Camarena, Sebastián Poggio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeptidoglycanDiaminopimelic acidCell wallBiochemistryMonosaccharidePolysaccharideBacterial cell structureHydrolysisSubstrate (aquarium)Muramic acidN-AcetylglucosamineChemistryBiologyChromatographyEnzymeBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of peptidoglycan-binding proteins frequently requires in vitro binding assays, in which the isolated peptidoglycan used as a substrate must be carefully quantified. Here, we describe an easy and sensitive assay for peptidoglycan quantification based on a modified Nelson-Somogyi reducing sugar assay. We report the response of this assay to different common sugars and adapt its use to peptidoglycan samples subjected to acid hydrolysis. This method showed better sensitivity than the peptidoglycan quantification method based on the acid detection of diaminopimelic acid. The method described in this work, besides being valuable in the characterization of peptidoglycan-binding proteins, is also useful for the quantification of reducing monosaccharides or polysaccharides after acid or hydrolysis.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Genetics and BiotechnologyFrench-language works237,207