MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1889206973 · doi:10.1139/y05-098

Somatic DNA recombination in a mouse genomic region, BC-1, in brain and non-brain tissueThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled The Nucleus: A Cell Within A Cell.

2006· article· en· W1889206973 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Toyoki Maeda, Ryuzo Mizuno, Masahiro Sugano, Shinji Satoh, Jun-ichi Oyama, Saburo Sakoda, T. Suzuki, Naoki Makino

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHomologous recombinationNon-allelic homologous recombinationGeneticsSomatic cellDNAgenomic DNAMolecular biologyChromosomeRecombinationGenetic recombinationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genomic region BC-1 (GenBank acc. No. AB075899) on mouse chromosome 16 has been reported as a genomic region undergoing somatic DNA recombination producing circular DNA and genomic deletion in brain during late embryogenesis. The present study shows that the BC-1 circular DNA production had already started on the 13th day of embryonic age, earlier than the previous observation that the circular DNA production started on the 15th through 17th embryonic day. The BC-1 deletion was also observed in the spleen and ocular lens. In situ hybridization analysis indicated that a human-homologous region in the BC-1 sequence was expressed in the lens at a perinatal period. These data suggest that the somatic DNA recombination in the BC-1 region is not restricted to brain tissue, and that the BC-1 DNA recombination relates to lens development.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering→French-language works237,207→