Copy Number Variant Analysis in CHM to Detect Duplications Underlying Choroideremia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the possibility of duplications or deletions within the CHM gene as a cause of choroideremia (CHM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight males and one female subject were identified in whom clinical features were consistent with a clinical diagnosis of CHM. In all cases, sequencing of the coding region and adjacent intronic splice sites did not identify a mutation. In some cases, supplemental immunoblot analysis of protein from peripheral blood leukocytes with anti-REP-1 antibody confirmed absence of Rab escort protein-1, REP-1. A multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay (MLPA) for the CHM gene was developed to test for deletions and duplications within the CHM gene. RESULTS: A duplication of exons 3-8 of the CHM gene (NM_000390.2) was identified in one case. DISCUSSION: While likely an uncommon event, duplication within the CHM gene could be considered as an explanation for CHM cases in which no mutation is found by sequence analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".