MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WT1 Activates a Glomerular-Specific Enhancer Identified from the Human Nephrin Gene

2004· article· en· W2101975128 on OpenAlexafffund
Gordon Guo, D. Morrison, Jonathan D. Licht, Susan E. Quaggin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNephrinPodocyteBiologyEnhancerMolecular biologyGeneSlit diaphragmCongenital nephrotic syndromeTransmembrane proteinTranscription factorZinc finger transcription factorZinc fingerGeneticsKidneyProteinuriaReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The glomerular filtration barrier separates the blood from the urinary space. Nephrin is a transmembrane protein that belongs to the immunoglobulin superfamily and is localized to the slit diaphragms that are a critical component of this filtration barrier. Mutations in the nephrin gene (NPHS1) lead to congenital Finnish nephropathy, whereas alterations in the level of nephrin expression have been identified in a wide range of acquired glomerular diseases. A 186-bp fragment from the human NPHS1 promoter is capable of directing podocyte-specific expression of a beta-galactosidase transgene when placed in front of a heterologous minimal promoter in transgenic mice. The Wilms tumor suppressor gene (WT1) is a zinc-finger-containing transcription factor that is coexpressed with NPHS1 in differentiated podocytes; gel shift binding assays demonstrate that a recombinant WT1 protein can bind and activate the 186-bp NPHS1 fragment in a sequence-specific manner. Taken together, these results suggest that WT1 may be required for regulation of the NPHS1 gene in vivo.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations105
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207