MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969397792 · doi:10.1139/f05-119

Detecting p53 family proteins in haemocytic leukemia cells of<i>Mytilus edulis</i>from Pictou Harbour, Nova Scotia, Canada

2005· article· en· W1969397792 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
S. D. St-Jean, R. E. Stephens, Simon C. Courtenay, Carol L. Reinisch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaDartmouth College
KeywordsMytilusNova scotiaPolyclonal antibodiesBiologyLeukemiaMonoclonal antibodyMolecular biologyAntibodyZoologyImmunologyFisheryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluating patterns of expression of p53-related proteins in cells is a novel approach in defining environmentally linked diseases. We have examined the induction of haemocytic leukemia in Mytilus edulis by municipal and industrial contaminants in Pictou Harbour, Nova Scotia, Canada. We used a murine monoclonal antibody, 1E10, as a diagnostic reagent to detect leukemic cells. We first characterized the reactivity of 1E10 with both normal and leukemic Mytilus haemocytes by confocal microscopy. We then compared p53 gene family expression (p53, p63–p73, and p97) in normal versus leukemic haemocytes using a panel of monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies to p53 family proteins. The immunochemical data demonstrate that haemocytic leukemia cells of M. edulis differentially express p63–p73 and p97–p120 proteins. We subsequently used 1E10 to diagnose haemocytic leukemia in 500 M. edulis previously deployed 6 months earlier in Pictou Harbour. In the field, Mytilus caged near untreated municipal wastewater and bleached kraft pulpmill effluents have a significantly greater chance of developing haemocytic leukemia than do mussels exposed to reference sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207