MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dissecting quantitative trait loci into opposite blood pressure effects on Dahl rat chromosome 8 by congenic strains

2004· article· en· W2049364366 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Ariyarajah, Ana Palijan, Julie Dutil, Kalyani Prithiviraj, Yishu Deng, Alan Y. Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenin-Angiotensin System Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôtel-Dieu de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCongenicQuantitative trait locusChromosomeLocus (genetics)GeneticsHomologous chromosomeChromosome 4BiologyGenetic linkageGenomeStrain (injury)Gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our previous linkage analyses showed that there was likely a quantitative trait locus (QTL) for blood pressure (BP) on chromosome 8 (Chr 8) in the strain comparison between the Dahl salt-sensitive (S) and the Lewis (LEW) rats. The current work is to delineate the chromosome interval harboring this QTL by using congenic strains with different chromosome substitutions. METHODS: Two congenic strains were produced by replacing different segments of the S rats with the homologous segments of the LEW rats. A genome-wide marker screening was utilized to accelerate this process. The two strains generated are designated as C8S.L1 and C8S.L2, respectively. BPs of the rats were measured by telemetry. RESULTS: C8S.L1 showed a BP lower than that of S rats. In contrast, C8S.L2 did not have chromosome overlaps with C8S.L1, but unexpectedly, exhibited a BP-raising effect, higher than that of S rats. CONCLUSION: There are at least two QTLs present in a section of Chr 8 that possess opposite BP effects. The current congenic work reveals not only the presence of QTLs, but the complexity of QTLs on BP. The novel congenic strain with hypertension more severe than S provides a new model for studies in elucidating physiological mechanisms controlling BP.

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)0.001
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations39
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicRenin-Angiotensin System StudiesFrench-language works237,207