INVESTIGATING THE MOLECULAR AND DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS CULTURE REGIMES IN A MOUSE MODEL SYSTEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Purpose: Genomic imprinting is a specialized transcriptional mechanism that results in the unequal expression of alleles based on their parent-of-origin [1]. Many imprinted genes are critical for proper embryonic and fetaldevelopment [2] and disruption of genomic imprinting are associated with many development disorders [3]. Recently, increased frequencies of imprinting disorders have been correlated with the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs)[2]. Rigorous and thorough testing of ARTs is required to determine their influence on genomic imprinting and development. I hypothesize that imprinting maintenance mechanisms are disrupted during early mouse development by the environmental insult of culture media used in human ARTs, and that loss of imprinting correlates with delayed embryonic development. Methods: The specific aims of my project are to develop a method to evaluate the methylation and expression patterns of 4 known imprinted genes in individual blastocysts. Results: We have successfully developed a novel method to evaluate both imprinted methylation and expression from a single mouse blastocyst. This method has been tested and results compared to methods used to evaluate imprinted methylation and expression separately; we have determined that results obtained with a combined protocol are equivalent to either alone. I will use this method to evaluate relationships between development rates in culture andgenomic imprinting, as well as the effects of various culture media used formouse and human embryo culture on genomic imprinting. Conclusion: This analysis allow for a more comprehensive study ofthe effects of environmental insult on genomic imprinting and preimplantation embryo development. References: 1. Reik W, Walter J. Genomic imprinting:parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet 2001;2:21-32. 2. Rodenhiser D, Mann M. Epigenetics andhuman disease: translating basic biology into clinical applications. CMAJ. 2006;174:341-8. 3.Paoloni-Giacobino A. Epigenetics in reproductive medicine. Pediatr Res 2007;61:51R-57R.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".