MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972966742 · doi:10.1159/000134151

Comparative RB1 gene mapping in Homo sapiens, Pithecia pithecia, Macaca sylvana, and Cercopithecus aethiops tantalus

2008· article· en· W1972966742 on OpenAlexaff
F. Tihy, Nicole Lemieux, M. Lombard, B. Dutrillaux

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetics and Cell Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCercopithecus aethiopsChromosomal inversionChromosome 13Homo sapiensHomologous chromosomeGeneticsChromosome BandChromosomeGene duplicationFluorescence in situ hybridizationKaryotypeGeneVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chromosomal localization of the gene for retinoblastoma (RB1), which has been mapped to band 13q14 in man, was studied by in situ hybridization on metaphase chromosomes of selected primates, including Pithecia pithecia, Macaca sylvana, and Cercopithecus aethiops tantalus. The results allowed us to determine the position of the bands homologous to human chromosome band 13q14 in these species. Hybridization analysis corroborated the results of previous studies that defined the chromosome homologous to human chromosome 13 (HSA 13) in these species. By comparing RB1 localizations and banding patterns, it is shown that the rearrangement separating HSA 13 from its homologous chromosome in Cercopithecidae is not a pericentric inversion, as suggested by earlier studies. Since the banding pattern and RB1 localization are not changed, the modification of the centromeric index is explained by a centromeric shift or by two inversions, one pericentric and one paracentric.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
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 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetics and Cell GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207