MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403556806 · doi:10.1016/j.ab.2024.115693

Impact of Lectin biotinylation for surface plasmon resonance and enzyme-linked Lectin assays for protein glycosylation

2024· article· en· W4403556806 on OpenAlexafffund
B. SERAFIN, Amine Kamen, Grégory De Crescenzo, Olivier Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Biochemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiotin and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPolytechnique Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsBiotinylationLectinSurface plasmon resonanceGlycosylationChemistryBiochemistryGlycoproteinEnzymeNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lectins are widely employed for the assessment of protein glycosylation as their carbohydrate binding specificities have been well characterized. In glycosylation assays, lectins are often conjugated with biotin tags, which interact with streptavidin to functionalize biosensing surfaces or recruit signal generating molecules, depending on the assay configuration. We here demonstrate that a high degree of biotin conjugation can limit total capture to streptavidin functionalized SPR surfaces due to multipoint binding, and can additionally bias the reported kinetic evaluations when measuring the interaction between lectins and glycoproteins by SPR. For microplate assays using different configurations, high biotinylation ratios can effectively amplify the signal obtained when using Streptavidin conjugates for detection, in some cases significantly lowering the limit of detection. The cumulative results express the importance of customizing the ligand biotinylation ratios for different assay configurations, as commercially obtained pre-biotinylated lectins are not necessarily optimized for different assay configurations.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical BiochemistrySame topicBiotin and Related StudiesFrench-language works237,207