MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807584969 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2017-0078

Analysis of chromatin instability of somatic cells in sheep

2018· article· en· W2807584969 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ewa Wójcik, Małgorzata Szostek, Elżbieta Horoszewicz, Emilia Kot, Sałuch Sebastian, Elżbieta Smalec

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenome instabilityBiologyComet assaySister chromatid exchangeDNA damageGeneticsFluctuating asymmetryBreedSomatic cellDNAEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytogenetic tests are highly reliable, sensitive indicators of the early effects of genomic instability. Their results provide information on the organism’s susceptibility to exogenous and endogenous factors and are measures of the degree of repair of DNA damage. Our study assessed spontaneously occurring damage in following four breeds of sheep: Polish Heath, Polish Lowland (Zelazna variety), Polish Blackhead, and Berrichon du Cher. Instability was identified using the following three different tests: a sister chromatid exchange (SCE) assay, identification of fragile sites, and the comet assay. The distribution of instabilities varied depending on the breed. The mean frequency of SCEs was 5.13 ± 1.58, whereas that of fragile sites was 3.30 ± 1.24. The mean level of DNA damage (% head DNA) was 96.52 ± 6.59. The most damage to genetic material was observed in the Berrichon du Cher sheep, and the least in the Polish Heath sheep. The tests used are reliable biomarkers of genome stability in animal breeds, as well as in individuals within breeds.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207