MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of national systems of innovation on therapeutic cloning : a comparison between the UK and China in the clinical area of diabetes.

2008· dissertation· en· W25432744 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gail Newmarch

Bibliographic record

VenueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of OxfordBritish Heart FoundationU.S. Department of Commerce
KeywordsLegislationContext (archaeology)ChinaLegislatureStem cellPolitical scienceBiologyGeneticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common approaches for purification of RNAs synthesized in vitro by the T7 RNA polymerase often denature the RNA and produce RNAs with chemically heterogeneous 5'- and 3'-ends. Thus, native affinity purification strategies that incorporate 5' and 3' trimming technologies provide a solution to two main disadvantages that arise from standard approaches for RNA purification. This chapter describes procedures for nondenaturing affinity purification of in vitro transcribed RNA using a 3'-ARiBo tag, which yield RNAs with a homogeneous 3'-end. The applicability of the method to RNAs of different sequences, secondary structures, and sizes (29-614 nucleotides) is described, including suggestions for troubleshooting common problems. In addition, this chapter presents three complementary approaches to producing 5'-homogeneity of the affinity-purified RNA: (1) selection of the starting sequence; (2) Cse3 endoribonuclease cleavage of a 5'-CRISPR tag; or (3) self-cleavage of a 5'-hammerhead ribozyme tag. The additional steps to express and purify the Cse3 endonuclease are detailed. In light of recent results, the advantages and limitations of current approaches to achieve 5'-homogeneity of affinity-purified RNA are discussed, such that one can select a suitable strategy to purify the RNA of interest.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Same topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207