MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610304818 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkx300

Detection of G-quadruplex DNA in mammalian cells

2017· erratum· en· W2610304818 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Henderson, Yuliang Wu, Yu Chuan Huang, Elizabeth A. Chavez, Jesse M. Platt, F. Brad Johnson, Robert M. Brosh, Dipankar Sen, Peter M. Lansdorp

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2017
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyG-quadruplexDNAMolecular biologyGeneticsBase sequenceComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Jan; 42(2): 860–869. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt957 The corresponding Author and Editors wish to jointly express a note of concern regarding the above article. Recent studies by the corresponding Author and new collaborators have revealed that mouse monoclonal antibody 1H6, used in the above article to detect G-quadruplexes, cross-reacts with some other DNA sequences, notably adjacent thymidines in single stranded DNA that are restricted in their movement in G4 structures and denatured DNA fibers. While the data reported in the published article remain valid, the Editors and corresponding Author wish to alert Readers of this cross-reactivity as it is likely to affect the interpretation of the results of all experiments using the 1H6 antibody. The Editors commend the corresponding Author for being forthcoming and disclosing these latest results which have been also been published in NAR (1). Keith Fox, Senior Executive Editor, Nucleic Acids Research Barry Stoddard, Senior Executive Editor, Nucleic Acids Research

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207