MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035540605 · doi:10.5539/jmbr.v2n1p54

Inference of Specific Gene Regulation by Environmental Chemicals in Human Embryonic Stem Cells

2012· article· en· W2035540605 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sachiyo Aburatani, Wataru Fujibuchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbryonic stem cellBiologyGene regulatory networkStem cellGeneToxicityCell biologyCellCellular differentiationCell fate determinationGene expressionComputational biologyGeneticsTranscription factorChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are exposed to many environmental chemicals in our daily life. Certain chemicals threaten our health, especially that of embryos and can cause serious developmental problems. To prevent abnormal development and diseases caused by chemicals, it is important to clarify the mechanisms of chemical toxicity in embryonic cells. The gene regulatory network is one of the useful methods for clarifying functional mechanisms in living cells, so we applied a statistical method to infer the gene regulatory network in human embryonic stem cells. In this study, we improved our previously developed SEM approach for inferring a network model from 9 gene expression profiles in human embryonic stem cells, which were exposed to various chemicals. The estimated regulatory models clarified the differences between chemicals, and the shapes of the inferred models reflected the features of the chemical toxicities. The toxicity of acrylamide affected neuronal cell-related genes, while that of diethylnitrosamine disturbed cell differentiation-related genes. On the other hand, the TCDD network reflected feedback regulation, and finally disturbed neuronal cell-related genes. In the Thalidomide network, cell differentiation genes related to axis formation in embyronic cells were affected by thalidomide toxicity.

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular Biology ResearchSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207