MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cloning and tissue distribution of a novel isoform of the rat GABABR1 receptor subunit

2001· article· en· W2075392042 on OpenAlexaff
Kuiru Wei, James H. Eubanks, Joseph Francis, Zhengping Jia, O. Carter Snead

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene isoformBiologyAlternative splicingTransmembrane domainMolecular biologyExonMetabotropic receptorProtein subunitCell biologyReceptorGlutamate receptorGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have identified a novel splice variant of the metabotropic GABA(B) receptor (R) subunit I, designated GABA(B)R1f, from a rat hippocampus cDNA library screen. GABA(B)R1f shares sequence homology with rat GABA(B)R1a, with the exception of an in-frame deletion of exon 4, resulting in a 21 bp deletion in the coding sequence of the N-terminal extracellular domain. In addition, GABA(B)R1f also contains a 93 bp in-frame insertion in a region of the sequence corresponding to the second extracellular loop and the fifth transmembrane domain, similar to that found in rat GABA(B)R1c. While being ubiquitously (but variably) expressed, reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction analysis revealed the GABA(B)R1f isoform to be most prevalent in peripheral vs central tissues, suggesting a potential role for this novel isoform in either the mediation of inhibitory transmission in these various tissues, or in as yet defined actions unrelated to central synaptic regulatory mechanisms attributable to GABA(B)R.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207