Imprinting defects in mouse embryos: stochastic errors or polymorphic phenotype?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defects in expression of imprinted genes are believed to cause developmental abnormalities and play a role in carcinogenesis. To determine whether spontaneous imprinting defects may occur in mouse embryos, we studied the expression of two imprinted genes H19 and Igf2 in individual postimplantation 7.5 d.p.c. and 8.5 d.p.c. embryos. Biallelic expression of H19 was found in 1.6% of the embryos, whereas biallelic expression of Igf2 was found in 0.5% of the embryos. The loss of H19 imprinting (LOI) observed in a small fraction of early postimplantation embryos may be purely stochastic. Alternatively, since we never observed it in an inbred background, it may depend on genetic factors acting in trans. Either mechanism could explain the occurrence of polymorphic imprinting as well as the genesis of sporadic imprinting defects, including cancer. The frequency of LOI of H19 was higher than the incidence of sporadic imprinting disorders in humans (about 1 in 20,000). This contradiction may be explained by different incidence of imprinting errors in different imprinted regions of the genome, in different species, or by loss of the majority of nonmosaic embryos with imprinting defects before birth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".