Why clone flies? Using Cloned<i>Drosophila</i>to Monitor Epigenetic Defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the birth of the first cloned sheep in 1996, advances in nuclear transplantation have led to both the creation of genetically tailored stem cells and the generation of a number of cloned organisms. The list of cloned animals reared to adulthood currently includes the frog, sheep, mouse, cow, goat, pig, rabbit, cat, zebrafish, mule, horse, rat and dog. The addition of Drosophila to this elite bestiary of cloned animals has prompted the question - why clone flies? Organisms generated by nuclear transplantation suffer from a high rate of associated defects, and many of these defects appear to be related to aberrant genomic imprinting. Imprinted gene expression also appears to be compromised in Drosophila clones. Proper imprinted gene regulation relies on a suite of highly conserved chromatin-modifying genes first identified in Drosophila. Thus, Drosophila can potentially be used to study epigenetic dysfunction in cloned animals and to screen for genetic and epigenetic conditions that promote the production of healthy clones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".