MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490845856 · doi:10.1111/jnc.13745

The oligodendrocyte‐specific antibody ‘<scp>CC</scp>1’ binds Quaking 7

2016· article· en· W2490845856 on OpenAlexafffund
Jenea M. Bin, Stephanie N. Harris, Timothy E. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurochemistry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsOligodendrocyteAntibodyclone (Java method)Monoclonal antibodyMolecular biologyAdenomatous polyposis coliAntigenBiologyMyelinRNA-binding proteinEpitopeRNABiochemistryCentral nervous systemImmunologyGeneticsDNAGeneCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mouse monoclonal antibody marketed as anti-adenomatous polyposis coli clone CC1, often referred to as CC1, is the antibody most commonly used to specifically label mature oligodendrocytes without labeling myelin. Previous studies have shown that despite being raised against adenomatous polyposis coli, this antibody binds another unknown antigen. We show that the CC1 antibody binds Quaking 7, an RNA-binding protein that is highly up-regulated in myelinating oligodendrocytes in the central nervous system. The monoclonal antibody anti-adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) clone CC1, is the antibody most commonly used to specifically label the cell bodies of mature oligodendrocytes. Despite being raised against APC, previous studies showed this antibody binds another unknown antigen. We show that the CC1 antibody binds Quaking (QKI) 7, an RNA-binding protein which is highly up-regulated in myelinating oligodendrocytes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations124
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurochemistrySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207