Comparative analysis of <i>Hoxa5</i> allelic series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the Hoxa5(-/-) mutants has revealed the critical role of Hoxa5 in survival, specification of axial identity, and ontogeny of organs, including the respiratory tract. The presence of the selection cassette in the original Hoxa5(-/-) mutation may interfere with the interpretation of the phenotypes. To circumvent this aspect and to bypass the lethality of the Hoxa5 mutation, we have designed a conditional approach and generated Hoxa5 allelic variants. The conditional allele (Hoxa5(floxed)) behaves as a wild-type allele. In contrast, both the Hoxa5(Delta) and the Hoxa5(floxneo) alleles are characterized by the loss of the functional transcript and protein, the lethality due to lung defects and the skeletal homeotic transformations similar to those of the Hoxa5(-/-) mutants. Analysis of neighboring Hox gene expression patterns in the Hoxa5 mutants produced further confirmed that the Hoxa5 allelic variants are true null alleles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".