MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>N</i> -Ethyl- <i>N</i> -Nitrosourea Mutagenesis: Boarding the Mouse Mutant Express

2005· review· en· W2137419788 on OpenAlexaff
Sabine P. Cordes

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMutagenesisMutantNitrosoureaGeneticsEthyl methanesulfonateMutationMolecular biologyComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the mouse, random mutagenesis with N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU) has been used since the 1970s in forward mutagenesis screens. However, only in the last decade has ENU mutagenesis been harnessed to generate a myriad of new mouse mutations in large-scale genetic screens and focused, smaller efforts. The development of additional genetic tools, such as balancer chromosomes, refinements in genetic mapping strategies, and evolution of specialized assays, has allowed these screens to achieve new levels of sophistication. The impressive productivity of these screens has led to a deluge of mouse mutants that wait to be harnessed. Here the basic large- and small-scale strategies are described, as are the basics of screen design. Finally, and importantly, this review describes the mechanisms by which such mutants may be accessed now and in the future. Thus, this review should serve both as an overview of the power of forward mutagenesis in the mouse and as a resource for those interested in developing their own screens, adding onto existing efforts, or obtaining specific mouse mutants that have already been generated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations78
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiology and Molecular Biology ReviewsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207