A two-locus model for experience-conditioned direction of paw usage in the mouse is suggested by dominant and recessive constitutive paw usage behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left-right direction of paw usage in the mouse depends on the genotype and the directional nature of the test. There are two phenotypic classes; in some strains, direction of paw usage is learned or conditioned by the direction of the initial test chamber and the experience of reaching and, in other strains, paw usage is a constitutive behaviour not affected by previous experience. We report the evidence for locus heterogeneity in the cause of constitutive versus experience-conditioned paw usage from a phenotypic analysis of F1 hybrid generations from the experience-conditioned C57BL/6J, C3H/HeHa, and SWV strains and the constitutive CDS/Lay and DBA/2J strains. The F1 hybrids between strains of different phenotypic classes provide evidence of locus heterogeneity. Constitutive paw usage in CDS/Lay is phenotypically dominant to experience-conditioned behaviour in both C57BL/6J and SWV. However, constitutive paw usage in DBA/2J is phenotypically recessive to experience-conditioned behaviour in C57BL/6J and dominant to experience-conditioned behaviour in SWV. Among the experience-conditioned strains, C57BL/6J is highly lateralized but SWV is only weakly lateralized. Our data suggest a model in which C57BL/6J may have a "strong" allele that identifies a functional difference between the constitutive paw usage of CDS/Lay and DBA/2J. DBA/2J may have a loss-of-function mutation at the same locus that is recessive to the strong C57BL/6J allele. SWV may have a "weak" allele and the (SWV x D2)F1 compound heterozygote may be below a threshold for detectability of experience-conditioned behaviour, making the constitutive behaviour of DBA/2J appear to be dominant to the experience-conditioned behaviour of SWV. CDS/Lay may have a dominant allele at a second locus that suppresses experience-conditioned behaviour in all F1 hybrids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".