MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083366165 · doi:10.1100/tsw.2007.40

Involvement of the<i>Gli3 (Extra-Toes)</i>Gene Region in Body Weight in Mice

2007· article· en· W2083366165 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Benoı̂t Martin, Eve Lapouble, Yohan Chaix

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité d'OrléansCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueDalhousie University
KeywordsGLI3Locus (genetics)AlleleGeneGeneticsBiologyBody weightMutationGenetic linkageEndocrinologyGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mutation extra-toes (Gli3Xt-J) on chromosome (Chr) 13 of the mouse is known to be involved in the development of the skeleton. The only visible manifestation is the presence of an extra digit on each hind foot. Here we report evidence from several experiments that Gli3XtJ/+ mice weigh more than littermate Gli3+/+ mice, suggesting an effect on body weight of Gli3 or of a gene tightly linked to it on Chr 13. Four independent experiments in different environments were conducted on mice with different genetic backgrounds derived from the C3XtEso Gli3Xt-J/+ Eso/+ linkage testing strain and the JE/Le strain at adult age. The analyses have shown an association between the Gli3Xt-J allele and a body weight increase of about 6.5%. This effect is genetically dominant. It would appear that if the gene of interest is not Gli3 itself, it must be very close to this locus. Indeed, the expected size for this fragment is 7.9 +/- 5.3 cM. The manifestation of this gene, observed in two animal facilities and on different genetic backgrounds, is consistent with the idea that the effect of the gene(s) is displayed in a stable manner. It accounts for a variation of 6.5% of body weight.

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)0.002
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207