MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W147365907 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-939-7:057

Genomic DNA Affinity Chromatography

2005· article· en· W147365907 on OpenAlexaff
Jyothi Kumaran, Eleanor N. Fish

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytokine Signaling Pathways and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTAT proteinstatTranscription factorJanus kinaseBiologyJAK-STAT signaling pathwaySTAT6Molecular biologySTAT4DNAPromoterPhosphorylationResponse elementTyrosine phosphorylationTranscription (linguistics)DNA binding siteCell biologyGeneGene expressionBiochemistryReceptor tyrosine kinaseSTAT3

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytokines elicit responses in target cells by inducing changes in gene expression. For interferons (IFNs), this involves receptor-mediated activation of specific transcription factors, which then translocate into the nucleus to bind to cognate gene elements in the promoters of IFN-inducible genes. The prototypic IFN-inducible transcription factors are the signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) proteins. IFN-receptor interactions invoke Janus kinase activation via phosphorylation events, which in turn leads to the recruitment and phosphorylation of STAT proteins on tyrosine residues. Activated STATs then dimerize to form STAT complexes. IFNs-alpha/beta will activate STAT-1, STAT-2, STAT-3 ,and STAT-5, whereas IFN-gamma will predominantly activate STAT-1. In this chapter, we describe a procedure to identify IFN-inducible deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) binding factors independently of any knowledge of their target DNA sequences. This procedure permits the identification of IFN-inducible STAT complexes as well as any other IFN-inducible DNA binding factors. This biochemical technique uses genomic DNA affinity chromatography to isolate DNA binding factors from IFN-inducible cytoplasmic or nuclear extracts.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicCytokine Signaling Pathways and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207