MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988319415 · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.05.006

pain2: A neuropathic pain QTL identified on rat chromosome 2

2007· article· en· W1988319415 on OpenAlexaff
J. Nissenbaum, Hagai Y. Shpigler, Anne Pisanté, Sonia delCanho, Anne Minert, Ze’ev Seltzer, Marshall Devor, Ariel Darvasi

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersIsrael Science FoundationHebrew University of Jerusalem
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusSyntenyGeneticsChromosomeBiologyChromosome 15Neuropathic painChromosome 7 (human)PopulationChromosome 12Chromosome 3GeneMedicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to locate a chronic pain-associated QTL in the rat (Rattus norvegicus) based on previous findings of a QTL (pain1) on chromosome 15 of the mouse (Mus musculus). The work was based on rat selection lines HA (high autotomy) and LA (low autotomy) which show a contrasting pain phenotype in response to nerve injury in the neuroma model of neuropathic pain. An F(2) segregating population was generated from HA and LA animals. Phenotyped F(2) rats were genotyped on chromosome 7 and chromosome 2, regions that share a partial homology with mouse chromosome 15. Our interval mapping analysis revealed a LOD score value of 3.63 (corresponding to p=0.005 after correcting for multiple testing using permutations) on rat chromosome 2, which is suggestive of the presence of a QTL affecting the predisposition to neuropathic pain. This QTL was mapped to the 14-26cM interval of chromosome 2. Interestingly, this region is syntenic to mouse chromosome 13, rather than to the region of mouse chromosome 15 that contains pain1. This chromosomal position indicates that it is possibly a new QTL, and hence we name it pain2. Further work is needed to replicate and to uncover the underlying gene(s) in both species.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.003
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207