MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171851261 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod.112.105742

The Imitation Switch ATPase Snf2l Is Required for Superovulation and Regulates Fgl2 in Differentiating Mouse Granulosa Cells

2013· article· en· W2171851261 on OpenAlexafffund
David Pépin, Francois Paradis, Carolina Perez‐Iratxeta, David J. Picketts, Barbara C. Vanderhyden

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyMutantGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imitation switch (ISWI) proteins are catalytic subunits of chromatin remodeling complexes that alter nucleosome positioning by hydrolyzing ATP to regulate access to DNA. In mice, there are two paralogs, SNF2-homolog (SNF2H) and SNF2-like (SNF2L), which participate in different complexes and have contrasting patterns of expression. Here we investigate the role of SNF2L in ovaries by characterizing a mouse bearing an inactivating deletion of exon 6 that disrupts the ATPase domain. Snf2l mutant mice produce significantly fewer eggs than control mice when superovulated. Gonadotropin stimulation leads to a significant deficit in secondary follicles and an increase in abnormal antral follicles. Mutant females also failed to induce fibrinogen-like 2 (Fgl2) in response to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) stimulation, while overexpression of SNF2L was sufficient to drive its expression in granulosa cells. SNF2L was also shown to directly interact with the nuclear receptor co-activator flightless I (FLI-I) as shown by immunoprecipitation. These results begin to establish a role for SNF2L in the precise coordination of gene expression in granulosa cells during folliculogenesis and its broader implications in fertility.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207