MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970011619 · doi:10.4161/epi.3.6.7109

Novel imprinted transcripts from the<i>Dlk1-Gtl2</i>intergenic region,<i>Mico1</i>and<i>Mico1os</i>, show circadian oscillations

2008· article· en· W1970011619 on OpenAlexafffund
Stéphane Labialle, Sylvie Croteau, Erin N. McMurray, Xuan Ruan, Sanny Moussette, Maud Jonnaert, Jennifer V. Schmidt, Nicolas Cermakian, Anna K. Naumova

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGenomic imprintingBiologyIntergenic regionGeneticsTranscription (linguistics)GeneCircadian rhythmImprinting (psychology)ChromosomeGenomeGene expressionDNA methylationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the known imprinted genes are assembled into clusters that share common imprinting control regions (ICRs). Non-coding transcripts are often associated with ICRs and implicated in imprinting regulation. We undertook a systematic search for transcripts originating from the Dlk1-Gtl2 intergenic region that contains the ICR for the chromosome 12 imprinted cluster and identified two overlapping transcripts expressed from opposite strands exclusively from the maternal chromosome. These novel imprinted transcripts most likely represent non-coding RNAs and are located telomeric to the IG DMR, extending the proximal boundary of the region of maternal-specific transcription. Their expression is tissue-specific and shows diurnal and circadian oscillations.Therefore, we named these novel transcripts maternal intergenic circadian oscillating 1 (Mico1) and Mico1, opposite strand (Mico1os).

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpigeneticsSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207