Analysis of behavior using genetical genomics in mice as a model: from alcohol preferences to gene expression differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most familial behavioral phenotypes result from the complex interaction of multiple genes. Studies of such phenotypes involving human subjects are often inconclusive owing to complexity of causation and experimental limitations. Studies of animal models argue for the use of established genetic strains as a powerful tool for genetic dissection of behavioral disorders and have led to the identification of rare genes and genetic mechanisms implicated in such phenotypes. We have used microarrays to study global gene expression in adult brains of four genetic strains of mice (C57BL/6J, DBA/2J, A/J, and BALB/c). Our results demonstrate that different strains show expression differences for a number of genes in the brain, and that closely related strains have similar patterns of gene expression as compared with distantly related strains. In addition, among the 24 000 genes and ESTs on the microarray, 77 showed at least a 1.5-fold increase in the brains of C57BL/6J mice as compared with those of DBA/2J mice. These genes fall into such functional categories as gene regulation, metabolism, cell signaling, neurotransmitter transport, and DNA/RNA binding. The importance of these findings as a novel genetic resource and their use and application in the genetic analysis of complex behavioral phenotypes, susceptibilities, and responses to drugs and chemicals are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".