MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416420174 · doi:10.1016/j.ab.2025.116015

Rapid purification of DNA samples from dextran sodium sulfate (DSS) contaminants

2025· article· en· W4416420174 on OpenAlexafffund
James Saliba, Volker Blank

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Biochemistry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsDNADNA extractionExtraction (chemistry)Bromidegenomic DNAContaminationDextran

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dextran sodium sulfate (DSS) is widely used to model colonic inflammation and colorectal cancer. However, it is a potent inhibitor of DNA polymerase, necessitating its removal prior to downstream analysis. Currently, there is no robust, widely applicable method of removing DSS from DNA samples. Here, we demonstrate that cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) buffer enables rapid and efficient removal of DSS from mouse stool DNA. In the absence of CTAB, DSS inhibited PCR reactions at concentrations of 136 nM and above. CTAB effectively removed DSS from DNA samples processed by both phenol-chloroform extraction and column cleanup kits. 700 μL of CTAB was able to remove up to 93 nmol (4 mg) of DSS after one round of cleanup, while two rounds removed up to 465 nmol (20 mg) of DSS. Purified genomic DNA was suitable for subsequent quantitative PCR analysis. • We established a protocol to remove sodium dextran sulfate (DSS) contamination from purified genomic DNA. • The purification method can be incorporated into a wide range of DNA extraction protocols. • Purified genomic DNA is of high quality and is suitable for subsequent quantitative PCR analysis.

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 score0.670

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 venueAnalytical BiochemistrySame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207