MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787867074 · doi:10.1139/gen-2017-0114

Sequencing and characterization of lncRNAs in the breast muscle of Gushi and Arbor Acres chickens

2018· article· en· W2787867074 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tuanhui Ren, Zhuanjian Li, Yu Zhou, Xuelian Liu, Ruili Han, Yongcai Wang, Fengbin Yan, Guirong Sun, Hong Li, Xiangtao Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyKEGGGeneGeneticsSkeletal muscleMyogenesisGene expressionGenomeComputational biologyGene ontologyCell biologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chicken muscle quality is one of the most important factors determining the economic value of poultry, and muscle development and growth are affected by genetics, environment, and nutrition. However, little is known about the molecular regulatory mechanisms of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in chicken skeletal muscle development. Our study aimed to better understand muscle development in chickens and thereby improve meat quality. In this study, Ribo-Zero RNA-Seq was used to investigate differences in the expression profiles of muscle development related genes and associated pathways between Gushi (GS) and Arbor Acres (AA) chickens. We identified two muscle tissue specific expression lncRNAs. In addition, the target genes of these lncRNAs were significantly enriched in certain biological processes and molecular functions, as demonstrated by Gene Ontology (GO) analysis, and these target genes participate in five signaling pathway, as revealed by an analysis of the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database. Taken together, these data suggest that different lncRNAs might be involved in regulating chicken muscle development and growth and provide new insight into the molecular mechanisms of lncRNAs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207