MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070677464 · doi:10.1182/blood-2009-03-212746

An upstream insulator regulates DLK1 imprinting in AML

2010· article· en· W2070677464 on OpenAlexaff
Haytham Khoury, Fernando Suárez, Samantha Wu, Mark D. Minden

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomic imprintingBiologyMethylationImprinting (psychology)Molecular biologyAlleleEpigeneticsDNA methylationMyeloid leukemiaUniparental disomyCancer researchGeneticsGeneGene expressionChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DLK1 is an imprinted gene on chromosome 14. Using informative coding single nucleotide polymorphisms, we found DLK1 expression to be monoallelic in normal bone marrow, whereas it was biallelic in 76% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) overexpressing DLK1 (61% of all AML). Quantitative methylation analysis of 7 cytosine-phosphate-guanosine-rich areas (3 upstream of or within DLK1, the putative intergenic-differentially methylated region and 3 upstream of or within MEG3) revealed a strong association between biallelic DLK1 expression and hypermethylation of a cytosine-phosphate-guanosine-rich region 18 kb upstream of DLK1. Allele-specific methylation analysis of this region revealed the alleles to be differentially methylated in normal bone marrow and monoallelic DLK1 AML, whereas there was increased methylation of both alleles in AML with biallelic expression. Moreover, chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis revealed that CCTC-binding factor binds to this region in monoallelic but not biallelic expression samples. Taken together, our data indicate that an insulator located 18 kb upstream of DLK1 plays an important role in regulating DLK1 imprinting.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations49
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207