MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The sequence of the bovine cysteine‐ and histidine‐rich cytoplasmic gene: EST puzzle solving by comparative assembly and confirmation by genomic sequencing

2003· article· en· W2045530619 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jesse Craig, B. S. Sharma, Zhihua Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyBovine genomeGeneticsGenBankGeneIntronExonGenomeLocus (genetics)Complementary DNAReference genomeRestriction fragment length polymorphismMolecular biologyPolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A simple, yet comprehensive comparative mapping approach on how to mine the current GenBank database in order to facilitate the gene and quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping in livestock species is described. Using this method, the bovine cysteine‐ and histidine‐rich cytoplasmic protein ( CYHR1) gene was characterized. The cDNA sequence of the bovine CYHR1 was determined using public expressed sequence tag (EST) puzzle solving and its genomic organization was identified by sequencing. A BLAST search against the human genome sequences indicated that the bovine CYHR1 gene tentatively contains at least three exons and two introns, spanning approximately 4 kb in the bovine genome. A total of 149 and 155 cows with high or low estimated breeding values (EBVs) in protein yield were genotyped on a G/A polymorphism in intron 1 by polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR‐RFLP) technique with digestion of restriction enzyme Nla III. This substitution had no significant effects on protein yield in Canadian Holstein cattle, yet could be used as a marker for additional haplotype analysis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Breeding and GeneticsSame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207