A Critical Review on the Sensing, Control, and Manipulation of Single Molecules on Optofluidic Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single-molecule techniques have shifted the paradigm of biological measurements from ensemble measurements to probing individual molecules and propelled a rapid revolution in related fields. Compared to ensemble measurements of biomolecules, single-molecule techniques provide a breadth of information with a high spatial and temporal resolution at the molecular level. Usually, optical and electrical methods are two commonly employed methods for probing single molecules, and some platforms even offer the integration of these two methods such as optofluidics. The recent spark in technological advancement and the tremendous leap in fabrication techniques, microfluidics, and integrated optofluidics are paving the way toward low cost, chip-scale, portable, and point-of-care diagnostic and single-molecule analysis tools. This review provides the fundamentals and overview of commonly employed single-molecule methods including optical methods, electrical methods, force-based methods, combinatorial integrated methods, etc. In most single-molecule experiments, the ability to manipulate and exercise precise control over individual molecules plays a vital role, which sometimes defines the capabilities and limits of the operation. This review discusses different manipulation techniques including sorting and trapping individual particles. An insight into the control of single molecules is provided that mainly discusses the recent development of electrical control over single molecules. Overall, this review is designed to provide the fundamentals and recent advancements in different single-molecule techniques and their applications, with a special focus on the detection, manipulation, and control of single molecules on chip-scale devices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".