MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088432483 · doi:10.1002/humu.1241

Identification and characterization of four novel large deletions in the human neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) gene

2001· article· en· W2088432483 on OpenAlexaff
Li Juan Fang, Dominique Vidaud, Michel Vidaud, Jean‐Paul Thirion

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Mutation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsBreakpointBiologyExonLoss of heterozygosityGeneticsSouthern blotGeneMolecular biologyAlleleChromosomal translocation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied 20 unrelated NF1 patients by Southern blots with seven cDNA probes and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis with four intragenic microsatellites (IVS26-2.3, IVS27AC28.4, IVS27AC33.1, and IVS38GT53.0). Four novel large deletions (178, 184, 236, and 237) have been identified and characterized. The breakpoint of deletion 178 was located in between exons 23-2 and 27b and the sequences downstream of the breakpoint were deleted. For deletion 184, the breakpoint was in between exons 27b and 29, and the region upstream of the breakpoint was deleted. With deletion 236, the breakpoint was in between exons 14 and 18 and the region downstream of the breakpoint was deleted. The breakpoint of deletion 237 was in between exons 38 and 45 and the sequences upstream of the breakpoint were deleted. These deletions were distributed randomly across the NF1 gene and no deletion hot spot was found. Our study suggests that the combination of analyses of loss of heterozygosity, southern blotting and southern blot densitometry can be used as a powerful method to detect large deletions, especially when family record is not available or the patient is a sporadic case.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman MutationSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207