MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020066914 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048176

In Vitro Site Selection of a Consensus Binding Site for the Drosophila melanogaster Tbx20 Homolog Midline

2012· article· en· W2020066914 on OpenAlexafffund
Nima Najand, Jae‐Ryeon Ryu, William J. Brook

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsConsensus sequenceDrosophila melanogasterBiologyBinding siteDNA binding siteConserved sequenceTranscription factorGeneticsSequence alignmentSequence (biology)Computational biologyPeptide sequenceGenePromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employed in vitro site selection to identify a consensus binding sequence for the Drosophila melanogaster Tbx20 T-box transcription factor homolog Midline. We purified a bacterially expressed T-box DNA binding domain of Midline, and used it in four rounds of precipitation and polymerase-chain-reaction based amplification. We cloned and sequenced 54 random oligonucleotides selected by Midline. Electromobility shift-assays confirmed that 27 of these could bind the Midline T-box. Sequence alignment of these 27 clones suggests that Midline binds as a monomer to a consensus sequence that contains an AGGTGT core. Thus, the Midline consensus binding site we define in this study is similar to that defined for vertebrate Tbx20, but differs from a previously reported Midline binding sequence derived through site 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 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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0030.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207