MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220832236 · doi:10.1002/anse.202200010

Selection of DNA Aptamers for Sensing Uric Acid in Simulated Tears

2022· article· en· W4220832236 on OpenAlexafffund
Yibo Liu, Juewen Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalysis & Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAptamerUric acidChemistryHyperuricemiaHypoxanthineBiosensorGoutDetection limitIsothermal titration calorimetryDendrimerBiochemistryDNAXanthineUrate oxidaseChromatographyMolecular biologyEnzymeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Uric acid is a biomarker for a range of diseases and hyperuricemia is the cause of many diseases including gout. While most biosensors for detecting uric acid relied on enzymatic reactions, in this work a library‐immobilization method was used to obtain DNA aptamers for uric acid. After 18 rounds of selection, two representative aptamers were obtained with a K d around 1.2 μM measured by isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). Based on their difference in binding to xanthine, which differs from uric acid by only one oxygen atom, these two aptamers have different binding orientations to uric acid. ITC also indicated that the UA‐1 aptamer specifically required a high concentration of Na + for binding, which cannot be replaced by Li + , K + or Mg 2+ . Combined ITC and fluorescence spectroscopy data indicated the need of three Na + ions, which explained the requirement of a high Na + concentration. The UA‐1 aptamer was engineered into a fluorescent biosensor based on the strand‐displacement reaction, resulting in a limit of detection of 90 nM uric acid. This sensor was also tested in simulated tears with a limit of detection of 350 nM uric acid.

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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations48
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalysis & SensingSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207