MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053574838 · doi:10.1182/blood-2008-12-195677

Skewing of X-inactivation ratios in blood cells of aging women is confirmed by independent methodologies

2009· article· en· W2053574838 on OpenAlexaff
Lambert Busque, Yves Paquette, Sylvie Provost, Denis‐Claude Roy, Ross L. Levine, Luigina Mollica, D. Gary Gilliland

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsX-inactivationPolymerase chain reactionTaqManBiologySNPSkewed X-inactivationReverse transcription polymerase chain reactionSingle-nucleotide polymorphismX chromosomeMolecular biologyGeneticsImmunologyAndrologyGeneMedicineGenotypeMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonrandom X-chromosome inactivation (XCI), also known as skewing, has been documented in the blood cells of a significant proportion of normal aging women by the use of methylation-based assays at the polymorphic human androgen receptor locus (HUMARA). Recent data obtained with a new transcription-based XCI determination method, termed suppressive polymerase chain reaction (PCR), has shed controversy over the validity of XCI ratio results obtained with HUMARA. To resolve this disparity, we analyzed XCI in polymorphonuclear leukocytes of a large cohort of women aged 43 to 100 years with the use of HUMARA (n=100), a TaqMan single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assay (n=90), and the suppressive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (n=67). The 3 methods yielded similar skewing incidences (42%, 38%, and 40%, respectively), and highly concordant XCI ratios. This confirms that the skewing of XCI ratio seen in blood cells of aging women is a bona fide and robust biologic phenomenon.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations87
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207