MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characterization of the porcine <i>KIT ligand</i> gene: expression analysis, genomic structure, polymorphism detection and association with coat colour traits

2008· article· en· W2147071998 on OpenAlexaff
C. Hadjiconstantouras, Carole A. Sargent, T.M. Skinner, Alan Archibald, Chris Haley, Graham Plastow

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicmelanin and skin pigmentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilGenus
KeywordsBiologyProto-Oncogene Proteins c-kitExonGeneticsLocus (genetics)GeneStem cell factorCandidate geneMolecular biologyStem cellHaematopoiesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kit ligand (KITLG) is the ligand for the type III receptor tyrosine kinase KIT. Studies of the KIT/KITLG pathway in a number of mammalian species have shown that it is important for the development of stem cell populations in haematopoietic tissues, germ cells in reproductive organs and the embryonic migrating melanoblasts that give rise to melanocytes. Consequently, mutations in the pathway may result in a range of defects including anaemia, sterility and de-pigmentation. The cDNA sequence of the porcine KITLG gene has been reported previously, and is an attractive candidate locus for moderating coat colour in pigs. In this paper we report the gene structure and physical mapping of the porcine gene. We also report the identification of polymorphisms in the gene, one of which was used to confirm linkage to chromosome 5. Preliminary RNA expression studies using a panel of tissues have shown that in addition to the known variant lacking exon 6, there is alternative splicing of exon 4. However, little evidence was found for the KITLG gene being linked to variation in colour in a Meishan x Large White cross.

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 score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal GeneticsSame topicmelanin and skin pigmentationFrench-language works237,207