MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414542273 · doi:10.1021/jasms.5c00193

Rapid Screening and Prioritization of Culture Conditions for Natural Product Discovery using the Liquid Microjunction Surface Sampling Probe

2025· article· en· W4414542273 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Kolwich, Georgia B. Reed, R. Theriault, Haidy Metwally, Lainey Ennett, Chang Liu, Randy E. Ellis, Avena C. Ross, Richard D. Oleschuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's University
KeywordsDrug discoverySampling (signal processing)Natural productPrioritizationWorkflowMass spectrometryPipeline (software)Sample preparation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The discovery of novel bioactive compounds remains a cornerstone of natural product (NP) chemistry. However, traditional NP discovery workflows are time- and resource-intensive, hindering sustainability and efficiency of multicondition screening projects. This study evaluates the application of the liquid microjunction surface sampling probe (LMJ-SSP) with partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) as a preliminary step in the NP discovery pipeline. By integrating ambient mass spectrometry with machine learning, we analyzed four strains of Penicillium fungi grown under 13 unique conditions in situ, without sample preparation. Using PLS-DA, we prioritized the growth conditions that maximized chemical diversity, offering insights into metabolite composition prior to resource-intensive steps in the NP discovery workflow. This LMJ-SSP-based approach achieved a significant reduction in sampling time (96%), overall cost (98%), and solvent consumption (98%)─streamlining the NP discovery pipeline through chemically informed prioritization and improved sustainability.

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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Mass SpectrometrySame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207