MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078713873 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.114.121087

Sexual Dimorphism in Developmental Programming of the Bovine Preimplantation Embryo Caused by Colony-Stimulating Factor 21

2014· article· en· W2078713873 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle B. Dobbs, Dominic Gagné, Éric Fournier, Isabelle Dufort, Claude Robert, J. Block, Marc‐André Sirard, L. Bonilla, Alan D. Ealy, B. Loureiro, Peter J. Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEmbryoSexual dimorphismTranscriptomeUterusEmbryogenesisSexual differentiationSecretionAndrologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiology of the adult can be modified by alterations in prenatal development driven by the maternal environment. Developmental programming, which can be established before the embryo implants in the uterus, can affect females differently than males. The mechanism by which sex-specific developmental programming is established is not known. Here we present evidence that maternal regulatory signals change female embryos differently than male embryos. In particular, actions of the maternally derived cytokine CSF2 from Day 5 to Day 7 of development affected characteristics of the embryo at Day 15 differently for females than males. CSF2 decreased length and IFNT secretion of female embryos but increased length and IFNT secretion of male embryos. Analysis of a limited number of samples indicated that changes in the transcriptome and methylome caused by CSF2 also differed between female and males. Thus, sex-specific programming by the maternal environment could occur when changes in secretion of maternally derived regulatory molecules alter development of female embryos differently than male embryos.

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)0.001
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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207