(Invited) Improved Thermal Stability of Low-Probe Density DNA SAMs Prepared with Electrodeposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA self-assembled monolayer (SAM) on gold electrodes has been widely used for biosensing.1, 2 The sensor stability and performance determine the reliability of the test results in early disease detection and point-of-care use.3, 4 We have carefully examined the thermal stability of a mixed SAMs composed of a short alkylthiol and alkylthiol modified DNA prepared with electrodeposition vs. those prepared at OCP (Open Circuit Potential) on a single crystal gold bead electrode. The nature of these two types of SAMs were carefully studied in buffer after exposure to different temperatures using in-situ fluorescence microscopy and electrochemical measurements. The analysis showed that surfaces with hexagonal symmetry were thermally less stable than those with rectangular or square symmetry, suggesting that the crystallography of the gold substrate plays an important role in sensor stability and performance in addition to the DNA density.5 We also found that OCP deposition creates a surface with high DNA coverage (>1012 DNA/cm2) but with higher level of irreproducibility. Even though this kind of surface can be more thermally stable, it is not optimal for effective biosensing due to its high coverage.6 It also seems to be challenging to make DNA SAMs with both low coverage and high thermal stability by using current SAM preparation protocols (e.g., OCP). In this study, we show that electrodeposition can prepare DNA SAMs with both higher thermal stability than those made at OCP and with good control of low surface coverage. This study provides valuable insights on making high quality DNA SAMs with better stability and functionality and improved reproducibility. References: Brittain, W. J.; Brandsetter, T.; Prucker, O.; Rühe, J. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 39397–39409. Civit, L.; Fragoso, A.; O’Sullivan, C. K. commun. 2010, 12, 1045–1048. Sheridan, C. Biotechnol. 2020. Panjan, P.; Virtanen, V.; Sesay, A. M. Talanta 2017, 170, 331–336. Ma, Tianxiao; Dan Bizzotto. Analytical Chemistry. 2021. 93 (48), 15973–15981. Peterson, A. W.; Heaton, R. J.; Georgiadis, R. M. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 5163–5168. Figure 1
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".