Acoustomicrofluidic separation of tardigrades from raw cultures for sample preparation
Authors:
Muhammad Afzal,
**soo Park,
Ghulam Destgeer,
Husnain Ahmed,
Syed Atif Iqrar,
Sanghee Kim,
Sunghyun Kang,
Anas Alazzam,
Tae-Sung Yoon,
Hyung ** Sung
Abstract:
Tardigrades are microscopic animals widely known for their survival capabilities under extreme conditions. They are the focus of current research in the fields of taxonomy, biogeography, genomics, proteomics, development, space biology, evolution, and ecology. Tardigrades, such as Hypsibius exemplaris, are being advocated as a next-generation model organism for genomic and developmental studies. T…
▽ More
Tardigrades are microscopic animals widely known for their survival capabilities under extreme conditions. They are the focus of current research in the fields of taxonomy, biogeography, genomics, proteomics, development, space biology, evolution, and ecology. Tardigrades, such as Hypsibius exemplaris, are being advocated as a next-generation model organism for genomic and developmental studies. The raw culture of H. exemplaris usually contains tardigrades themselves, their eggs, and algal food and feces. Experimentation with tardigrades often requires the demanding and laborious separation of tardigrades from raw samples to prepare pure and contamination-free tardigrade samples. In this paper, we propose a two-step acousto-microfluidic separation method to isolate tardigrades from raw samples. In the first step, a passive microfluidic filter composed of an array of traps is used to remove large algal clusters in the raw sample. In the second step, a surface acoustic wave-based active microfluidic separation device is used to continuously deflect tardigrades from their original streamlines inside the microchannel and thus selectively isolate them from algae and eggs. The experimental results demonstrated the efficient tardigrade separation with a recovery rate of 96% and an algae impurity of 4% on average in a continuous, contactless, automated, rapid, biocompatible manner.
△ Less
Submitted 9 September, 2019;
originally announced September 2019.
Target Fishing: A Single-Label or Multi-Label Problem?
Authors:
Avid M. Afzal,
Hamse Y. Mussa,
Richard E. Turner,
Andreas Bender,
Robert C. Glen
Abstract:
According to Cobanoglu et al and Murphy, it is now widely acknowledged that the single target paradigm (one protein or target, one disease, one drug) that has been the dominant premise in drug development in the recent past is untenable. More often than not, a drug-like compound (ligand) can be promiscuous - that is, it can interact with more than one target protein. In recent years, in in silico…
▽ More
According to Cobanoglu et al and Murphy, it is now widely acknowledged that the single target paradigm (one protein or target, one disease, one drug) that has been the dominant premise in drug development in the recent past is untenable. More often than not, a drug-like compound (ligand) can be promiscuous - that is, it can interact with more than one target protein. In recent years, in in silico target prediction methods the promiscuity issue has been approached computationally in different ways. In this study we confine attention to the so-called ligand-based target prediction machine learning approaches, commonly referred to as target-fishing. With a few exceptions, the target-fishing approaches that are currently ubiquitous in cheminformatics literature can be essentially viewed as single-label multi-classification schemes; these approaches inherently bank on the single target paradigm assumption that a ligand can home in on one specific target. In order to address the ligand promiscuity issue, one might be able to cast target-fishing as a multi-label multi-class classification problem. For illustrative and comparison purposes, single-label and multi-label Naive Bayes classification models (denoted here by SMM and MMM, respectively) for target-fishing were implemented. The models were constructed and tested on 65,587 compounds and 308 targets retrieved from the ChEMBL17 database. SMM and MMM performed differently: for 16,344 test compounds, the MMM model returned recall and precision values of 0.8058 and 0.6622, respectively; the corresponding recall and precision values yielded by the SMM model were 0.7805 and 0.7596, respectively. However, at a significance level of 0.05 and one degree of freedom McNemar test performed on the target prediction results returned by SMM and MMM for the 16,344 test ligands gave a chi-squared value of 15.656, in favour of the MMM approach.
△ Less
Submitted 23 November, 2014;
originally announced November 2014.
