MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151250176 · doi:10.1002/gcc.20446

Delineation of a 1Mb breakpoint region at 1p13 in Wilms tumors by fine‐tiling oligonucleotide array CGH

2007· article· en· W2151250176 on OpenAlexaff
Rachael Natrajan, Richard D. Williams, Anita Grigoriadis, Alan Mackay, Kerry Fenwick, Alan Ashworth, Jeffrey S. Dome, Paul E. Grundy, Kathy Pritchard‐Jones, Chris Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Chromosomes and Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakpointBiologyGeneticsTiling arrayGenomeCopy-number variationInterspersed repeatChromosomal translocationGeneComputational biologyDNA microarrayHuman genome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilms tumor karyotypes frequently exhibit recurrent, large-scale chromosomal imbalances, among the most common of which are concurrent loss of 1p and gain of 1q. We have previously identified a novel breakpoint at 1p13 by 1 Mb-spaced array CGH, and have now undertaken a fine-tiling oligonucleotide array approach to map the region accurately in four tumors exhibiting rearrangements at this locus. The use of a 10 bp-spaced platform revealed that all four tumors in fact harbored different breakpoints, which targeted intragenic sequences in PHTF1, DCLRE1B, and NRAS, and an intergenic region immediately downstream of TRIM33. All four genes and breakpoints were within the 1.78 Mb intervals identified by the genome-wide BAC arrays. The precise breakpoint interval was in each case mapped to a 200-1,200 bp region and was confirmed for one case to lie within intron 3 of DCLRE1B by quantitative PCR. Analysis of local genome architecture revealed no convincing conservation of repetitive sequences or specific translocation/recombination-associated elements within the breakpoint regions. This study highlights the power of fine-tiling oligonucleotide arrays to delineate breakpoint regions identified by genome-wide screens.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Chromosomes and CancerSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207