MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031179749 · doi:10.1038/oby.2008.658

Genes on Rat Chromosomes 3, 5, 10, and 16 Are Linked With Facets of Metabolic Syndrome

2009· article· en· W2031179749 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Romy Baguhl, Barbara Wilke, Nora Klöting, Ingrid Klöting

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocrinologyCongenicInternal medicineLeptinQuantitative trait locusBiologyMetabolic syndromeObesityMedicineGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WOKW (Wistar Ottawa Karlsburg W) rats develop metabolic syndrome closely resembling human disorder. In crossing studies between disease-prone WOKW and disease-resistant DA (Dark Agouti) rats, several quantitative trait loci (QTLs) were mapped. To prove the in vivo relevance of QTLs, congenic DA.WOKW rats, briefly termed DA.3aW, DA.3bW, DA.5W, DA.10W, and DA.16W, were generated by transferring chromosomal regions of WOKW chromosomes 3, 5, 10, and 16 onto DA genetic background. Male (n=12) and female (n=12) rats of each congenic strain and their parental strain DA were characterized for adiposity index (AI), serum leptin, and serum insulin as well as serum cholesterol and serum triglycerides as single facets of metabolic syndrome at the age of 30 weeks. The data showed a significant higher AI for male and female DA.3aW and female DA.16W compared with DA. Serum leptin was significantly elevated in male and female DA.3aW, DA.10W, and DA.16W rats in comparison with DA. Rats of both sexes of DA.10W and female DA.16W showed significantly elevated serum insulin in comparison to DA. Female rats of all congenics had significantly higher serum cholesterol compared with DA, while males did not differ. Finally, triglycerides were only elevated in male DA.16W. The results demonstrate an involvement of WOKW chromosomes 3, 5, 10, and 16 in developing facets of the metabolic syndrome.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesitySame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207