DNA microsatellite and linkage analysis supports the inclusion of LOCR in the Rh blood group system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 1994, a new low-incidence RBC antigen called LOCR was described. It was established that RBCs expressing LOCR had altered expression of Rh antigens (c or e). Unfortunately, because of an insufficient number of informative families, it was not possible to formally assign LOCR to the Rh blood group system by serology alone. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Genomic DNA from 19 family members segregating for LOCR was analyzed for repeat polymorphisms of the chromosome 1p microsatellite markers D1S1612, D1S1597, D1S552, D1S247, and D1S2134. RESULTS: No evidence of recombination (in either paternal or maternal meioses) between LOCR and D1S1597, D1S552, or D1S247 was observed. Peak lods for combined paternal and maternal meioses were 2.41 for either LOCR:D1S552 or LOCR:D1S247. Lods for linkage between LOCR and D1S1597 peaked at 1.81 for maternal meioses alone. CONCLUSIONS: With serologic methods, a peak lod of 2.107 was determined previously between LOCR and RH. In this study, DNA analysis of the only informative family (with seven children) not segregating for RH yielded a peak lod of 1.81 between LOCR and D1S1597-D1S552-D1S247. By combining the results generated by each approach (lods of 3.917), evidence has been provided that supports the placement of LOCR in the Rh blood group system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".