MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547102031 · doi:10.1111/cge.12385

Personalized gene silencing therapeutics for Huntington disease

2014· review· en· W1547102031 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Kay, Niels H. Skotte, Amber L. Southwell, Michael R. Hayden

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsGene silencingHuntingtinGeneticsBiologyHuntington's diseaseTrinucleotide repeat expansionAllelePopulationLinkage disequilibriumSingle-nucleotide polymorphismDiseaseGeneGenotypeMedicineMutantPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene silencing offers a novel therapeutic strategy for dominant genetic disorders. In specific diseases, selective silencing of only one copy of a gene may be advantageous over non-selective silencing of both copies. Huntington disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant disorder caused by an expanded CAG trinucleotide repeat in the Huntingtin gene (HTT). Silencing both expanded and normal copies of HTT may be therapeutically beneficial, but preservation of normal HTT expression is preferred. Allele-specific methods can selectively silence the mutant HTT transcript by targeting either the expanded CAG repeat or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in linkage disequilibrium with the expansion. Both approaches require personalized treatment strategies based on patient genotypes. We compare the prospect of safe treatment of HD by CAG- and SNP-specific silencing approaches and review HD population genetics used to guide target identification in the patient population. Clinical implementation of allele-specific HTT silencing faces challenges common to personalized genetic medicine, requiring novel solutions from clinical scientists and regulatory authorities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.174 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207