MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978842992 · doi:10.1159/000133659

Regional localization of loci on chromosome 14 using somatic cell hybrids

2008· article· en· W1978842992 on OpenAlexaff
G D Billingsley, D W Cox, Alessandra M.V. Duncan, Paul J. Goodfellow, K.-H. Grzeschik

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetics and Cell Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsRadiation hybrid mappingSomatic cellChromosomeFluorescence in situ hybridizationMolecular biologyGene mappingGeneSomatic fusionBreakpointChromosomal translocation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have used a panel of human x rodent somatic cell hybrids containing translocations involving chromosome 14 to regionally localize 17 genes and 5 random segments previously mapped to chromosome 14. Each hybrid cell line contains a specific fragment of chromosome 14, with breakpoints at 14q11.2, 14q21, 14q22, 14q24.3 or in two different regions of 14q32.1. The enzyme deficient in glycogen storage disease type VI, liver glycogen phosphorylase (PYGL), has been localized by in situ hybridization to 14q21-->q22, near the q21-->q22 band interface. Four additional genes, chromogranin A (CHGA), myosin (MYH7), tRNA proline 2 (TRP2) and c-FOS (FOS) and four random segments, D14S26, D14S12, D14S14 and D14S13 have been more precisely localized. This study also defines a hybrid cell panel with seven mapping intervals, that will be useful for further physical mapping of new loci.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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