Apparent absence ofoct 3/4 from the chicken genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of efficient methods for establishing germline competent chicken embryonic stem (ES) cell lines has proved elusive. In the mouse embryo, expression of oct 3/4 is limited to pluripotent cells and primordial germ cells; regulatory sequences of this gene have been used to derive germline competent mouse ES cell lines by the continuous ablation of differentiated cells in culture using drug selection. To apply this technique to chickens several strategies were employed to analyze the chicken genome for oct 3/4, a member of the highly conserved POU gene family. PCR and Southern hybridization experiments with primers and probes based on mouse oct 3/4 sequences indicated that oct 3/4-like sequences are not present in the chicken genome. Also, analysis of mRNA from Stage 14 and 20 (H&H) chick embryos by reverse transcription PCR and the screening of a Stage 20 (H&H) chick embryo cDNA library with mouse oct 3/4-based primers and probes indicated that oct 3/4-like sequences are not expressed in the early chick embryo. The apparent absence of oct 3/4 in chickens, despite the conservation of the gene in mammals and urodeles, is discussed in terms of possible implications for the mode of chicken PGC formation in relation to that in other vertebrates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".