Analysis of an approach to oviduct-specific expression of modified chicken lysozyme genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The -2.7 kb enhancer (E) element of the chicken lysozyme gene domain appears to govern expression of the gene in macrophages but not in oviduct tubular gland cells, the only other site of lysozyme expression. The ultimate goal of our research was to determine whether lysozyme domain variants could be developed that would mainly be expressed in the oviduct so that transgenic birds could be produced that would deposit exogenous protein in the egg white. Accordingly, precise mutations were made by poxvirus-mediated gene targeting in FEF/PU.1 and CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein (C/EBP) transcription factor binding sites in the -2.7 kb E of cloned copies of a specific lysozyme gene variant that includes a hydrophobic pentapeptide tail encoding sequence inserted immediately prior to the stop codon. This variant contains the entire lysozyme domain and is cloned in a lambda bacteriophage vector (lambdaDIILys-HT); the novel tail sequence enables distinction in cell-based expression systems between transcripts of the variant and those of the endogenous gene. These various lysozyme domain mutants, in bacteriophage vector form, were tested for expression in cultured chicken blastodermal cells cotransfected with plasmids encoding the transcription factors C/EBP and v-Myb. In the absence of these plasmids, barely detectable levels of endogenous lysozyme gene transcription resulted in the blastodermal cells. In the presence of the plasmids, however, transcripts of the endogenous gene could be detected as well as varying levels (as evaluated by quantitative real-time PCR) of transcripts of all of the lysozyme domain mutants. These results are discussed in the context of the known role and occurrence of various transcription factors involved in gene expression in differentiating macrophage cells. The ultimate test of expression of the variants in macrophages vs. oviduct cells will be to use them to produce transgenic birds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".