MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251520346 · doi:10.1038/npre.2012.6965

Quantitative Models for Efficient Cloning of Different Vectors with Various Clone sites

2012· preprint· en· W4251520346 on OpenAlexafffund
Gang Zhang, Anurag Tandon

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Precedings · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCloning (programming)clone (Java method)Restriction enzymeTransformation (genetics)LigationComputational biologyRestriction digestRestriction siteBiologyCloning vectorMolecular biologyVector (molecular biology)LibraryMolecular cloningGeneticsDNARecombinant DNAGeneComputer sciencePeptide sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed an efficient "Combinatorial Strategy” for cloning different vectors with various clone sites. 1) Using originally existed clone sites from circular vectors to prepare the inserts, and if no appropriate sites are available, performing SDM to create compatible sites, to achieve maximal correct digestion of the inserts. 2) Different vectors were digested with various restriction endonucleases, and then dephosphorylated with CIP. 3) Top10 competent cells were used for transformation to increase the transformant colonies. Our results showed that, when blunt sites, or a Xba I site was adopted for ligation, the percentages of positive clones were about 50%. Whereas, when different sites, including one blunt and another Pst I sites, Not I and Xho I sites, the percentages of positive clones were nearly 100%. Using this strategy, most vectors could be successfully cloned through “one ligation, one transformation, three to five minipreps."

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature PrecedingsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207