MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471524648 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-060-8:167

Construction of Transgenic Animals Overproducing Neurotrophins and Their Receptors

2003· article· en· W2471524648 on OpenAlexaff
Carrie G. Causing, Freda D. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgeneBiologyNeurotrophinCell biologyGenetically modified mouseReceptorSomatic cellGermlineGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development and analysis of transgenic mice that overexpress or misexpress neurotrophins or their receptors has led to a number of fundamental insights into the mechanisms whereby this family of growth factors exerts its biological effects in vivo (1–5). These transgenic mice were generated when an appropriate foreign DNA construct, or transgene, expressing a neurotrophin or neurotrophin receptor was stably incorporated in the genome of every cell; the transgene, which was incorporated at the same chromosomal location(s) in germ-line and somatic cells, was transmitted to offspring in a Mendelian manner, allowing for a detailed analysis of the physiological consequences of perturbations in neurotrophin biology. Although conceptually simple, the generation and analysis of transgenic mice is a time-consuming and expensive process that is fraught with potential conceptual and technical problems. In this chapter, we provide (1) an overview of the steps involved in the production and analysis of transgenic mice that overexpress neurotrophins or their receptors, with an emphasis on targetting to neurons, and (2) detailed protocols for the characterization of transgenic mice at the level of DNA, RNA, and protein expression.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207