MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008726555 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.10080

Mouse dystrophin enhancer preferentially targets <i>lac</i>Z expression in skeletal and cardiac muscle

2002· article· en· W2008726555 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Marshall, Nathalie Chartrand, Yves De Repentigny, Rashmi Kothary, Louise Pelletier, Rudi Mueller, Ronald G. Worton

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEnhancerDystrophinSkeletal muscleUtrophinDuchenne muscular dystrophyITGA7Cardiac muscleMuscular dystrophyTransgeneGenetically modified mouseMyocyteMolecular biologyGene expressionCell biologyGeneEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a muscle wasting disease that results from a dystrophin deficiency in skeletal and cardiac muscle. Studies concerning the regulatory elements that govern dystrophin gene expression in skeletal and/or cardiac muscle in both mouse and human have identified a promoter and an enhancer located in intron 1. In transgenic mice, the muscle promoter alone targets the expression of a lacZ reporter gene only to the right ventricle of the heart, suggesting the need for other regulatory elements to target skeletal muscle and the rest of the heart. Here we report that the mouse dystrophin enhancer from intron 1 can target the expression of a lacZ reporter gene in skeletal muscle as well as in other heart compartments of transgenic mice. Our results also suggest that sequences surrounding the mouse dystrophin enhancer may affect its function throughout mouse development.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207