Sequence analysis of coding and 3' and 5' flanking regions of the epithelial sodium channel α, β, and γ genes in Dahl S versus R rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To test whether epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) genes' variants contribute to salt sensitive hypertension in Dahl rats, we screened ENaC alpha, beta, and gamma genes entire coding regions, intron-exon junctions, and the 3' and 5' flanking regions in Dahl S, R and Wistar rats using both Denaturing High Performance Liquid Chromatography (DHPLC) and sequencing. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed no sequence variability in the three genes encoding ENaC in Dahl S versus R rats. One homozygous sequence variation predicted to result in a D75E substitution was identified in Dahl and Wistar rat ENaC alpha compared to Brown Norway. Six and two previously reported polymorphic sites in Brown Norway sequences were lost in Dahl and Wistar rats, respectively. In the 5' flanking regions, we found a deletion of 5GCTs in Dahl and Wistar rat ENaC alpha gene, five new polymorphic sites in ENaC beta and gamma genes, one homozygous sequence variation in Dahl and Wistar rat ENaC gamma gene, as well as one Dahl rat specific homozygous insertion of -1118CCCCCA in ENaC gamma gene. This insertion created additional binding sites for Sp1 and Oct-1. Five and three Brown Norway polymorphic sites were lost in Dahl and Wistar rats, respectively. No sequence variability in ENaC 3' flanking regions was identified in Dahl compared to Brown Norway rats. CONCLUSION: The first comprehensive sequence analysis of ENaC genes did not reveal any differences between Dahl S and R rats that were isogenic in the regions screened. Mutations in ENaC genes intronic sequence or in ENaC-regulatory genes might possibly account for increased ENaC activity in Dahl S versus R rats.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".