MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781034373 · doi:10.5713/ajas.17.0460

Analysis of cross-population differentiation between Thoroughbred and Jeju horses

2017· article· en· W2781034373 on OpenAlexaff
Wonseok Lee, Kyung‐Do Park, Mengistie Taye, Chul Lee, Heebal Kim, Hak‐Kyo Lee, Donghyun Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsBiotechnology Research Institute
FundersRural Development Administration
KeywordsPopulationVeterinary medicineBiologyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study was intended to identify genes positively selected in Thoroughbred horses (THBs) that potentially contribute to their running performances. METHODS: The genomes of THB and Jeju horses (JH, Korean native horse) were compared to identify genes positively selected in THB. We performed cross-population extended haplotype homozygosity (XP-EHH) and cross-population composite likelihood ratio test (XP-CLR) statistical methods for our analysis using whole genome resequencing data of 14 THB and 6 JH. RESULTS: We identified 98 (XP-EHH) and 200 (XP-CLR) genes that are under positive selection in THB. Gene enrichment analysis identified 72 gene ontology biological process (GO BP) terms. The genes and GO BP terms explained some of THB's characteristics such as immunity, energy metabolism and eye size and function related to running performances. GO BP terms that play key roles in several cell signaling mechanisms, which affected ocular size and visual functions were identified. GO BP term Eye photoreceptor cell differentiation is among the terms annotated presumed to affect eye size. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed some positively selected candidate genes in THB related to their racing performances. The genes detected are related to the immunity, ocular size and function, and energy metabolism.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian-Australasian Journal of Animal SciencesSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207