MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106697715 · doi:10.1128/jvi.00858-09

Human Endogenous Retroviral Long Terminal Repeat Sequences as Cell Type-Specific Promoters in Retroviral Vectors

2009· article· en· W2106697715 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrike Schön, Olivia Diem, Laura Leitner, Walter H. Günzburg, Dixie L. Mager, Brian Salmons, Christine Leib‐Mösch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsTerry Fox Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong terminal repeatBiologyPromoterEndogenous retrovirusRetrovirusGeneReporter geneMurine leukemia virusGeneticsTransfectionExpression vectorTranscription (linguistics)VirologyMolecular biologyGenomeGene expressionRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human genome contains more than half a million human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) long terminal repeats (LTRs) that can be regarded as mobile regulatory modules. Many of these HERV LTRs have been recruited during evolution as transcriptional control elements for cellular gene expression. We have cloned LTR sequences from two HERV families, HERV-H and HERV-L, differing widely in their activity and tissue specificity into a murine leukemia virus (MLV)-based promoter conversion vector (ProCon). Various human cell lines were infected with the HERV-MLV hybrid vectors, and cell type-specific expression of the reporter gene was compared with the promoter specificity of the corresponding HERV LTRs in transient-transfection assays. Transcription start site analysis of HERV-MLV hybrid vectors revealed preferential use of the HERV promoter initiation site. Our data show that HERV LTRs function in the context of retroviral vectors in certain cell types and have the potential to be useful as cell type-specific promoters in vector construction.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207