Mouse genetic approaches applied to the normal tissue radiation response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The varying responses of inbred mouse models to radiation exposure present a unique opportunity to dissect the genetic basis of radiation sensitivity and tissue injury. Such studies are complementary to human association studies as they permit both the analysis of clinical features of disease, and of specific variants associated with its presentation, in a controlled environment. Herein I review how animal models are studied to identify specific genetic variants influencing predisposition to radiation-induced traits. Among these radiation-induced responses are documented strain differences in repair of DNA damage and in extent of tissue injury (in the lung, skin, and intestine) which form the base for genetic investigations. For example, radiation-induced DNA damage is consistently greater in tissues from BALB/cJ mice, than the levels in C57BL/6J mice, suggesting there may be an inherent DNA damage level per strain. Regarding tissue injury, strain specific inflammatory and fibrotic phenotypes have been documented for principally, C57BL/6 C3H and A/J mice but a correlation among responses such that knowledge of the radiation injury in one tissue informs of the response in another is not evident. Strategies to identify genetic differences contributing to a trait based on inbred strain differences, which include linkage analysis and the evaluation of recombinant congenic (RC) strains, are presented, with a focus on the lung response to irradiation which is the only radiation-induced tissue injury mapped to date. Such approaches are needed to reveal genetic differences in susceptibility to radiation injury, and also to provide a context for the effects of specific genetic variation uncovered in anticipated clinical association studies. In summary, mouse models can be studied to uncover heritable variation predisposing to specific radiation responses, and such variations may point to pathways of importance to phenotype development in the clinic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".