MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768231922 · doi:10.1266/ggs.17-00024

<i>piggyBac</i>- and phiC31 integrase-mediated transgenesis in <i>Drosophila prolongata</i>

2017· article· en· W2768231922 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ayumi Kudo, Takeshi Awasaki, Yukio Ishikawa, Takashi Matsuo

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Genetic Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsTransgenesisBiologyDrosophila melanogasterIntegraseTransformation (genetics)GeneticsComputational biologyGeneEmbryogenesisReproductive technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of transgenesis systems in non-model organisms provides a powerful tool for molecular analysis and contributes to the understanding of phenomena that are not observed in model organisms. Drosophila prolongata is a fruit fly that has unique morphology and behavior not found in other Drosophila species including D. melanogaster. In this study, we developed a phiC31 integrase-mediated transgenesis system for D. prolongata. First, using piggyBac-mediated transgenesis, 37 homozygous attP strains were established. These strains were further transformed with the nosP-Cas9 vector, which was originally designed for phiC31-mediated transgenesis in D. melanogaster. The transformation rate varied from 0% to 3.4%. Nine strains with a high transformation rate of above 2.0% were established, which will serve as host strains in future transformation experiments in D. prolongata. Our results demonstrate that genetic tools developed for D. melanogaster are applicable to D. prolongata with minimal modifications.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & Genetic SystemsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207