Quantification of allelic differential expression using a simple Fluorescence primer PCR-RFLP-based method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allelic differential expression (ADE) is common in diploid organisms, and is often the key reason for specific phenotype variations. Thus, ADE detection is important for identification of major genes and causal mutations. To date, sensitive and simple methods to detect ADE are still lacking. In this study, we have developed an accurate, simple, and sensitive method, named fluorescence primer PCR-RFLP quantitative method (fPCR-RFLP), for ADE analysis. This method involves two rounds of PCR amplification using a pair of primers, one of which is double-labeled with an overhang 6-FAM. The two alleles are then separated by RFLP and quantified by fluorescence density. fPCR-RFLP could precisely distinguish ADE cross a range of 1- to 32-fold differences. Using this method, we verified PLAG1 and KIT, two candidate genes related to growth rate and immune response traits of pigs, to be ADE both at different developmental stages and in different tissues. Our data demonstrates that fPCR-RFLP is an accurate and sensitive method for detecting ADE on both DNA and RNA level. Therefore, this powerful tool provides a way to analyze mutations that cause ADE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".