MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247742342 · doi:10.1017/9781108526227.015

Electroporation Measurements in Engineered Membranes

2018· book-chapter· en· W4247742342 on OpenAlexaff
William Hoiles, Vikram Krishnamurthy, Bruce Cornell

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroporationMembraneMesoscopic physicsMaterials scienceBiological systemBiophysicsNanotechnologyChemistryPhysicsBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The electroporation measurement platform (EMP) discussed in Chapters 4 and 6 is a synthetic biological device built out of artificial membranes to study electroporation in a controlled environment. In this chapter we apply the continuum models for electroporation developed in Chapter 11 to predict and interpret the response of the EMP device. Specifically we evaluate how accurately the continuum models predict the response of the EMP to membranes containing different tether densities, lipid types, and sterols and excited using different waveforms. Thus, this chapter (which validates electroporation models with experimental data in precisely controlled environments) together with the previous chapter (which formulates continuum models) gives a complete treatment of electroporation at the mesoscopic level. Before proceeding, the reader should recall that electroporation is the process of aqueous pore formation resulting from changes in the transmembrane potential. A schematic of the electroporation process is given in Figure 12.1. To ensure only the process of electroporation is present, the following test is performed for all experiments involving the electroporation measurement platform (see Chapter 6 for details of such experiments). An excitation potential V s is applied and the resulting current is recorded; then the negative potential − V s is applied and the resulting current recorded. If the current response resulting from V s is related to the current response of − V s by a sign change then we can conclude that only the process of electroporation is present. This conclusion follows from the dynamic model of engineered membranes given by Figure 11.4 and (11.17). Recall that the process of electroporation is transmembrane potential symmetric; that is, the polarity or sign of the applied transmembrane potential does not change the dynamics the electroporation process. All experimental measurements reported below satisfied this test. Organization of Chapter Given the mesoscopic models in Chapter 11, in this chapter we evaluate important parameters of the engineered membrane using both in silico and in vitro techniques. More importantly, we give significant insight into the process of electroporation by discussing several aspects. Figure 12.2 illustrates the aspects of electroporation that we discuss, which comprises three topics. The first is the aqueous pore conductance and dynamics (number and size of aqueous pores).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207