Construction of a cDNA-based microarray for<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>: a comparison of gene transcription profiles from SL2 and Kc167 cells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have constructed a DNA microarray that represents approximately 6900 of the estimated 13,598 genes in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. The microarray contains 5756 target cDNAs from the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project, 1078 cDNAs from the National Institutes of Health Drosophila testis cDNA library, and 546 gene fragments that were amplified from genomic DNA. The methods for DNA amplification and microarray manufacture are presented. Academic researchers can obtain the microarray from the Canadian Drosophila Microarray Centre. To evaluate the utility of these arrays, we compared the gene transcription profiles of two commonly used Drosophila cell lines. Analysis revealed that 5412 spot pairs gave signals consistently above the average background in Kc167 cells, whereas 5636 spot pairs met this criterion in SL2 cells. When the expression profiles of the cell lines were compared, 1437 genes displayed at least a 1.5-fold difference, and 170 genes had a threefold or greater difference between the two cell lines. In each case, with respect to Kc167 when compared with SL2 cells, the number of genes that were upregulated was nearly equal to the number of downregulated genes. This result demonstrates that despite the similar embryonic derivation of both cell lines, their transcriptional profiles are very different.
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.
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 it