MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic crosses in the apicomplexan parasite <i>Cryptosporidium parvum</i> define recombination parameters

2007· article· en· W2074777968 on OpenAlexaff
Sultan Tanrıverdi, J. Craig Blain, Bingbing Deng, Michael T. Ferdig, Giovanni Widmer

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Microbiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicParasitic Infections and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsBiologyAlleleGeneticsCryptosporidium parvumRecombinationMitotic crossoverGenetic recombinationMeiosisVirulenceChromosomal crossoverChromosomeGenotypeApicomplexaGenePlasmodium falciparum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recombinant progeny lines of Cryptosporidium parvum were generated by coinfecting immunosuppressed mice with two genetically distinct isolates of C. parvum. Progeny lines were obtained from a cross of parental lines MD x TU114 through targeted propagation in mice of progeny oocysts originating from populations lacking one parental allele at one or more loci. For each infection lineage this process was repeated until only a single allele remained for each marker, indicating that the progeny line was clonal. To study genetic recombination, 16 progeny clones were genotyped at 40 loci located on each of the eight chromosomes. The inheritance of parental alleles was significantly skewed towards the more virulent parent isolate MD. A contiguous 476 kb segment of chromosome V displayed MD allele in all progeny recovered, while MD and TU114 alleles were detected at other loci throughout the genome. The absence of alleles from one parental isolate in this chromosomal region may indicate phenotypic selection for the MD allele during the generation of these lines. A range for the meiotic crossover frequency was determined on the basis of 40 markers and the number of meioses estimated to have taken place during the crossing experiment. C. parvum exhibits a high rate of recombination commensurate with other Apicomplexa.

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)0.001
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 score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations45
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular MicrobiologySame topicParasitic Infections and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207