Associations between imprinted gene expression in the placenta, human fetal growth and preeclampsia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic imprinting is essential for normal placental and fetal growth. One theory to explain the evolution of imprinting is the kinship theory (KT), which predicts that genes that are paternally expressed will promote fetal growth, whereas maternally expressed genes will suppress growth. We investigated the expression of imprinted genes using microarray measurements of expression in term placentae. Correlations between birthweight and the expression levels of imprinted genes were more significant than for non-imprinted genes, but did not tend to be positive for paternally expressed genes and negative for maternally expressed genes. Imprinted genes were more dysregulated in preeclampsia (a disorder associated with placental insufficiency) than randomly selected genes, and we observed an excess of patterns of dysregulation in preeclampsia that would be expected to reduce nutrient allocation to the fetus, given the predictions of the KT. However, we found no evidence of coordinated regulation among these imprinted genes. A few imprinted genes have previously been shown to be associated with fetal growth and preeclampsia, and our results indicate that this is true for a broader set of imprinted genes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".