MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988511705 · doi:10.1262/jrd.16066

Cloning of the Elk TSH .BETA.-Subunit cDNA and Seasonal Expression of the Pituitary Glycoprotein Hormone Genes

2005· article· en· W1988511705 on OpenAlexaff
Rena Clark, Michael Furlan, P. Jorge Chedrese

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reproduction and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloning (programming)Complementary DNAGlycoproteinGeneBETA (programming language)HormoneProtein subunitMolecular biologyGene expressionBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyGeneticsMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the elk (Cervus elaphus) thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) beta-subunit cDNA cloning, nucleotide and deduced amino acid sequences. The TSH beta-subunit cDNA was obtained by RT-PCR of polyadenylated pituitary RNA. The deduced elk TSH beta-subunit peptide chain shares between 93 to 99% sequence similarities with the reported TSH beta-subunit of a sub-set of related species. The TSH beta-subunit gene is expressed in the elk pituitary gland as a mature transcript of approximately 600 bases, which corresponds to the size of the mRNA expressed in the sheep pituitary gland. Seasonal expression of the pituitary gonadotropin genes was investigated by Northern blot analyses. Samples of elk pituitary glands collected during the breeding season showed elevated steady state levels of common alpha-subunit and FSH and LH beta-subunit gene expression, consistent with the seasonal reproductive cycling of this species. Samples collected before the breeding season demonstrated decreased expression of the gonadotropin genes. TSH, which is not directly tied to reproduction, had similar levels of expression, regardless of the animal's reproductive status.

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)0.001
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 score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reproduction and DevelopmentSame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207