MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2078988840 · doi:10.1139/g04-124

Simple sequence in brain and nervous system specific proteins

2005· article· en· W2078988840 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Melanie A. Huntley, Sanaa Mahmood, G. Brian Golding

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyNervous systemSequence (biology)Central nervous systemPeptide sequenceFunction (biology)GeneticsLoss functionNeuroscienceGenePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined sequences expressed in the brain and nervous system using EST data. A previous study including sequences thought to have neurological function found a deficiency of simple sequence within such sequences. This was despite many examples of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Huntington disease, which are thought to be caused by expansions of polyglutamine tracts within associated protein sequences. It may be that many of the sequences thought to have neurological function have other additional, non-neurological roles. For this reason, we examined sequences with specific expression in the brain and nervous system, using EST expression data to determine if they too are deficient of simple, repetitive sequences. Indeed, we find this class of sequences to be deficient. Unexpectedly, however, we find sequences expressed in the brain and nervous system to be consistently enriched for histidine-enriched simple sequence. Determining the function of these histidine-rich regions within brain-specific proteins requires more experimental data.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases→French-language works237,207→