MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2437716483 · doi:10.1038/srep27204

Gomafu lncRNA knockout mice exhibit mild hyperactivity with enhanced responsiveness to the psychostimulant methamphetamine

2016· article· en· W2437716483 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Y. Ip, Masamitsu Sone, Chieko Nashiki, Qun Pan, Kiyoyuki Kitaichi, Kaori Yanaka, Takaya Abe, Keizo Takao, Tsuyoshi Miyakawa, Benjamin J. Blencowe, Shinichi Nakagawa

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersRIKENMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsNucleus accumbensMethamphetamineKnockout mouseRNA splicingAlternative splicingDopamineGeneGene expressionBiologyGene knockoutRNANeuroscienceGeneticsPharmacologyGene isoform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long noncoding RNA Gomafu/MIAT/Rncr2 is thought to function in retinal cell specification, stem cell differentiation and the control of alternative splicing. To further investigate physiological functions of Gomafu, we created mouse knockout (KO) model that completely lacks the Gomafu gene. The KO mice did not exhibit any developmental deficits. However, behavioral tests revealed that the KO mice are hyperactive. This hyperactive behavior was enhanced when the KO mice were treated with the psychostimulant methamphetamine, which was associated with an increase in dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. RNA sequencing analyses identified a small number of genes affected by the deficiency of Gomafu, a subset of which are known to have important neurobiological functions. These observations suggest that Gomafu modifies mouse behavior thorough a mild modulation of gene expression and/or alternative splicing of target genes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations64
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207