MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049508686 · doi:10.4141/a03-053

GnRH receptor messenger ribonucleic acid expression in bovine ovary

2003· article· en· W2049508686 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nagaraja Ramakrishnappa, G. Giritharan, M. Aalli, Pavneesh Madan, R. Rajamahendran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorpus luteumMessenger RNAOvaryBiologyComplementary DNAOvulationMolecular biologyReverse transcription polymerase chain reactionReceptorDot blotNorthern blotEndocrinologyInternal medicineGene expressionAndrologyGeneHormoneBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was undertaken to investigate the mRNA expression for gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor in bovine ovary. Granulosa cells from small (< 4 mM), medium (5–8 mM) and large follicles (> 8 mM) and tissues from corpora lutea (CL) of different stages: Stage I (days 1–4), Stage II (days 5–10), Stage III (days 11–17), and Stage IV (days 18–21, days after ovulation) were harvested from bovine ovaries collected at a local abattoir. The mRNA isolated from representative samples was subjected to reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using gene sequence specific primers. The resultant PCR amplified gonadotropin-releasing horm one receptor (GnRH-R) cDNA products were identified and confirmed through Southern blot hybridization and nucleotide sequence analysis, respectively. The results showed the presence of GnRH-R mRNA transcripts in both follicles and CL. Key words: Bovine, granulosa cells, corpus luteum, GnRH receptor, mRNA

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207