MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular basis of the LOCR (Rh55) antigen

2006· article· en· W2118204683 on OpenAlexaff
Gail Coghlan, Marilyn Moulds, Edward Nylen, Teresa Zelinski

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntigenMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 1994 during the investigation of a case of hemolytic disease of the newborn, a new low-incidence red cell (RBC) antigen, LOCR, was described. Although the presence of LOCR was associated with altered expression of Rh antigens, its formal assignment to the Rh blood group system did not occur until haplotype and linkage analysis conducted in 2003 provided the necessary proof. The current study was undertaken in an attempt to define the underlying RH mutation in LOCR+ individuals. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Genomic DNA from five unrelated LOCR+ individuals and three Rh-matched control individuals was amplified by polymerase chain reaction with intronic primers flanking all 10 exons of RH. Amplified products were separated on 1 percent agarose gels and isolated for DNA sequence analysis in both the forward and the reverse directions. RESULTS: DNA sequence analysis of the three LOCR+ D- individuals revealed a single heterozygous 286G>A nucleotide substitution resulting in a predicted Gly>Ser substitution at amino acid 96. DNA sequence analysis from the two LOCR+ D+ individuals revealed the identical mutation, as well as all of the changes associated with the common RHD gene. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, a Gly96Ser substitution in the Rhce polypeptide defines the low-incidence RBC antigen known as LOCR. This same amino acid change has previously been shown to be involved in the Rh:-26 phenotype, which suggests that LOCR and Rh26 are antithetical. Serologic investigations with various Rh:-26 cells and serum samples, however, reveal that only some c+ Rh:-26 phenotypes are LOCR+.

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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207