MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116538759 · doi:10.1002/smll.201400075

Nano‐Dissection and Sequencing of DNA at Single Sub‐Nuclear Structures

2014· article· en· W2116538759 on OpenAlexafffund
Brandon K. Chen, David Anchel, Zheng Gong, Rachel N. Cotton, Li Ren, Yu Sun, David P. Bazett‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueSmall · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsGeneDNAComputational biologyDNA sequencing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative positioning of gene loci within a mammalian nucleus is non-random and plays a role in gene regulation. Some sub-nuclear structures may represent "hubs" that bring specific genetic loci into close proximity where co-regulatory mechanisms can operate. The identification of loci in proximity to a shared sub-nuclear structure can provide insights into the function of the associated structure, and reveal relationships between the loci sharing a common association. A technique is introduced based on the nano-dissection of DNA from thin sections of cells by high-precision nano-tools operated inside a scanning electron microscope. The ability to dissect and identify gene loci occupying a shared site at a single sub-nuclear structure is demonstrated here for the first time. The technique is applied to the nano-dissection of DNA in vicinity of a single promyelocytic leukemia nuclear body (PML NB), and reveals novel loci from several chromosomes that are confirmed to associate at PML NBs with statistical significance in a cell population. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that pairs of loci from different chromosomes congregate at the same nuclear body. It is proposed that this technique is the first that allows the de novo determination of gene loci associations with single nuclear sub-structures.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmallSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207