A Comparison of DNA–DNA Hybridization Kinetics in Complex Media on Planar and Nanostructured Electrodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive investigation into how nanostructures alter real-time DNA hybridization kinetics in both buffer and complex media and under a wide range of probe and target concentrations is currently lacking. In response, we use a real-time, wash-free, and in situ assay to study DNA hybridization kinetics by performing continuous electrochemical measurements in different media. We investigated the differences in hybridization kinetics under three regimes of probe density (low, medium, and high) and over three orders of magnitude of target concentrations (0.01–1 μM). Additionally, we compared the performance of planar and nanostructured electrodes in buffer, blood, urine, and saliva. Our experiments indicate that adding nanostructures to the transducer surface is only effective under a specific probe/target concentration regime. Additionally, we found that direct electrochemical readout is possible in the examined physiological media, with measurements in blood showing the highest and saliva showing the lowest signal magnitudes compared to buffer.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".