MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116883279 · doi:10.1534/genetics.110.121160

Bulk Segregation Mapping of Mutations in Closely Related Strains of Mice

2010· article· en· W2116883279 on OpenAlexafffund
Yu Xia, Sungyong Won, Xin Du, Pei Lin, Charles Ross, Diantha La Vine, S Wiltshire, Gabriel Leiva, Silvia M. Vidal, Belinda Whittle, Christopher C. Goodnow, James A. Koziol, Eva Marie Y. Moresco, Bruce Beutler

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsMutationEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenovariance may be obscured when genetic mapping is performed using highly divergent strains, and closely similar strains are preferred if adequate marker density can be established. We sequenced the C57BL/10J mouse genome using the Applied Biosystems SOLiD platform and here describe a genome-wide panel of informative markers that permits the mapping of mutations induced on the closely related C57BL/6J background by outcrossing to C57BL/10J, and backcrossing or intercrossing. The panel consists of 127 single nucleotide polymorphisms validated by capillary sequencing: 124 spaced at ∼20-Mb intervals across the 19 autosomes, and three markers on the X chromosome. We determined the genetic relationship between four C57BL-derived substrains and used the panel to map two N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)-induced mutations responsible for visible phenotypes in C57BL/6J mice through bulk segregation analysis. Capillary sequencing, with computation of relative chromatogram peak heights, was used to determine the proportion of alleles from each strain at each marker.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207