MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088378833 · doi:10.1038/srep00497

Intersectional Cre Driver Lines Generated Using Split-Intein Mediated Split-Cre Reconstitution

2012· article· en· W2088378833 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ping Wang, Tianrui Chen, Katsuyasu Sakurai, Bao-Xia Han, Zhigang He, Guoping Feng, Fan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of HealthDalhousie University
KeywordsInteinEnhancerTransgeneBiologyRNA splicingReporter geneGeneGreen fluorescent proteinGeneticsPromoterCell biologyMolecular biologyGene expressionRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue and cell type highly specific Cre drivers are very rare due to the fact that most genes or promoters used to direct Cre expressions are generally expressed in more than one tissues and/or in multiple cell types. We developed a split-intein based split-Cre system for highly efficient Cre-reconstitution through protein splicing. This split-intein-split-Cre system can be used to intersect the expression patterns of two genes or promoters to restrict full-length Cre reconstitution in their overlapping domains. To test this system in vivo, we selected several conserved human enhancers to drive the expression of either Cre-N-intein-N, or intein-C-Cre-C transgene in different brain regions. In all paired CreN/CreC transgenic mice, Cre-dependent reporter was efficiently induced specifically in the intersectional expression domains of two enhancers. This split-intein based method is simpler to implement compared with other strategies for generating highly-restricted intersectional Cre drivers to study complex tissues such as the nervous system.

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)0.000
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations70
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207