MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1648713449 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.170.7.3739

A New Model of Sheep Ig Diversification: Shifting the Emphasis Toward Combinatorial Mechanisms and Away from Hypermutation

2003· article· en· W1648713449 on OpenAlexaff
Craig N. Jenne, Laurie J. Kennedy, Peter McCullagh, John D. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatic hypermutationRepertoireBiologyGeneticsSomatic cellGermlineAntibody RepertoireGeneEvolutionary biologyGene rearrangementAntibodyB cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current model of Ig repertoire development in sheep focuses on the rearrangement of a small number (approximately 20) of Vlambda gene segments. It is believed that this limited combinatorial repertoire is then further diversified through postrearrangement somatic hypermutation. This process has been reported to introduce as many as 110 mutations/1000 nucleotides. In contrast, our data have that indicated somatic hypermutation may diversify the preimmune repertoire to a much lesser extent. We have identified 64 new Vlambda gene segments within the rearranged Ig repertoire. As a result, many of the unique nucleotide patterns thought to be the product of somatic hypermutation are actually hard-coded within the germline. We suggest that combinatorial rearrangement makes a much larger contribution, and somatic hypermutation makes a much smaller contribution to the generation of diversity within the sheep Ig repertoire than is currently acknowledged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207