Inheritance of Resistance to Promotion of Preneoplastic Liver Lesions in Copenhagen Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, we have shown that Copenhagen (Cop) rats are highly resistant to the induction of putative preneoplastic, glutathione S-transferase 7-7- (GST 7-7) positive liver lesions following treatment with a modified resistant hepatocyte (RH) protocol. The objective of this study was to determine if resistance is inherited in a dominant or recessive manner and to derive an estimate of the number of genetic loci involved. We crossed male and female Cop rats with F344 rats to produce F1 offspring. Backcross rats were generated using female F1 rats and either Cop or F344 males, resulting in B1c and B1f generations, respectively. The male rats from all these crosses were initiated with diethylnitrosamine (200 mg/kg) at 7 to 8 weeks of age and were promoted 3 weeks later with the RH protocol (2-acetylaminofluorene and a two-thirds partial hepatectomy). The rats were sacrificed 3 weeks after the partial hepatectomy and their livers were sectioned and stained for GST 7-7-positive lesions. The susceptibility of F1 rats was in between Cop and F344 rats, having 21.7% +/- 2.0% (mean +/- SEM) of their liver volume occupied by lesions versus 4.2% +/- 0.8% for Cop and 53.0% +/- 5.8% for F344 rats. As expected, B1c rats had a volume of liver occupied by lesions that was in between the F1 and Cop rats at 13.5% +/- 1.6%. Surprisingly, B1f rats were similar to B1c rats in their resistance (9.1% +/- 2.1%). These results point to a complex, polygenic inheritance pattern that can be explained by a minimum of four loci, one of which shows recessive epistasis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".