MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995191891 · doi:10.1101/pdb.prot080358

Genetic Manipulation of Autophagy in the <i>Drosophila</i> Ovary

2014· article· en· W1995191891 on OpenAlexafffund
Lindsay DeVorkin, Sharon M. Gorski

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Protocols · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGermlineBiologyGene knockdownMutantAutophagySomatic cellGeneGeneticsDrosophila (subgenus)RNA interferenceDrosophila melanogasterGermline mutationGenetic screenGenetic analysisMutationCell biologyRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flies with mutations in Atg7 or Atg8a are homozygous viable and develop to adulthood, whereas mutations in other autophagy genes, including Atg1, are homozygous lethal. Clonal analysis has been instrumental in examining the role and regulation of lethal Atg genes in many aspects of Drosophila development and survival. The generation of homozygous mutant clones in an otherwise heterozygous mutant background is possible in mitotically active tissues, and is highly beneficial in that the control cells and experimental cells are subjected to the same developmental and nutritional cues allowing for a side-by-side comparison. Several methods are now available to examine the contribution of lethal autophagy genes during Drosophila oogenesis. Here we describe how to generate a homozygous mutant germline using the FLP-DFS (dominant female sterile) technique, how to generate somatic clones, and how to induce targeted gene knockdown in the germline using RNAi.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor ProtocolsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207