MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014277215 · doi:10.1139/o00-082

The chicken <i>stathmin</i> gene and its expression in the embryo

2000· article· en· W2014277215 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sharon Soodeen-Karamath, Ann M. Verrinder Gibbins

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStathminBiologyIntronExonGeneComplementary DNAGene expressionMolecular biologyGeneticsCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stathmin, which functions as an intracellular relay in signal transduction pathways, has been suggested as a potential indicator of pluripotent cells in the early mouse embryo. In this study, chicken stathmin cDNA and genomic DNA were analyzed. In mammals stathmin consists of five exons and four introns; exons 3, 4, and 5 in the mammalian stathmin gene are equivalent to one relatively large exon in the chicken stathmin gene. Introns equivalent to introns 3 and 4 in the mammalian stathmin gene are not present in the counterpart gene in chickens and, although intron 2 was shown to be present in both mammals and birds, it is smaller in the chicken stathmin gene. Despite differences in the genomic organization of the gene and its smaller size in chickens compared with that in humans and mice, similarities in the coding sequences and in the expression of the chicken and mouse stathmin genes at certain stages of embryo development, as determined by whole-mount in situ hybridization experiments, suggest that their products are functional homologues. The argument is thus substantiated for further investigations into the use of regulatory regions of the stathmin gene in a system for the establishment of long-term cultures of germline competent chicken embryonic stem (ES) cells by the selective ablation of differentiated cells in culture using drug selection.

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)0.000
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207