MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019884603 · doi:10.1139/g04-056

Microarray analysis for identification of<i>Plasmodium</i>-refractoriness candidate genes in mosquitoes

2004· article· en· W2019884603 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haifeng Chen, Jianxin Wang, Ping Liang, Monica Karsay-Klein, Anthony A. James, Daniel A. Brazeau, Guiyun Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsBiologyAnopheles gambiaeAedes aegyptiGeneticsGeneExpressed sequence tagPopulationPlasmodium gallinaceumAnophelesAvian malariaComplementary DNAParasite hostingVirologyMalariaGametocytePlasmodium falciparumImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification and cloning of genes conferring mosquito refractoriness to the malaria parasite is critical for understanding malaria transmission mechanisms and holds great promise for developing novel approaches to malaria control. The mosquito midgut is the first major site of interaction between the parasite and the mosquito. Failure of the parasite to negotiate this environment can be a barrier for development and is likely the main cause of mosquito refractoriness. This paper reports a study on Aedes aegypti midgut expressed sequence tag (EST) identification and the determination of genes differentially expressed in mosquito populations susceptible and refractory to the avian malaria parasite Plasmodium gallinaceum. We sequenced a total of 1200 cDNA clones and obtained 1183 high-quality mosquito midgut ESTs that were computationally collapsed into 105 contigs and 251 singlets. All 1200 midgut cDNA clones, together with an additional 102 genetically or physically mapped Ae. aegypti clones, were spotted on single arrays with 12 replicates. Of those interrogated microarray elements, 28 (2.3%) were differentially expressed between the susceptible and refractory mosquito populations. Twenty-seven elements showed at least a two-fold increase in expression in the susceptible population level relative to the refractory population and one clone showed reduced expression. Sequence analysis of these differentially expressed genes revealed that 10 showed no significant similarity to any known genes, 6 clones had matches with unannotated genes of Anopheles gambiae, and 12 clones exhibited significant similarity to known genes. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR of selected clones confirmed the mRNA expression profiles from the microarray analysis.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207