MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062952077 · doi:10.4161/cc.7.9.5806

Paternal cranial irradiation induces distant bystander DNA damage in the germline and leads to epigenetic alterations in the offspring

2008· article· en· W2062952077 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Tamminga, Igor Koturbash, Mike Baker, Kristy Kutanzi, Palak Kathiria, Igor P. Pogribny, Robert J. Sutherland, Olga Kovalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGermlineOffspringEpigenomeEpigeneticsBystander effectDNA damageGenome instabilityGeneticsSomatic cellGermline mutationEpigenesisDNA methylationCancer researchCell biologyDNAMutationImmunologyGenePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now well accepted that parental whole body irradiation causes transgenerational genome and epigenome instability in the offspring. The majority of human exposures to radiation, such as therapeutic and diagnostic irradiation, are localized and focused. The potential of localized body-part exposures to affect the germline and thus induce deleterious changes in the progeny has not been studied. To investigate whether or not the paternal cranial irradiation can exert deleterious changes in the protected germline, we studied the accumulation of DNA damage in the shielded testes tissue. Here we report that the localized paternal cranial irradiation results in a significant accumulation of unrepaired DNA lesions in sperm cells and leads to a profound epigenetic dysregulation in the unexposed progeny conceived a week after paternal exposure.

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 score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations76
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207