MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2989919407 · doi:10.1139/gen-2019-0046

A novel understanding of global DNA methylation in bobcat (<i>Lynx rufus</i>)

2019· article· en· W2989919407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bonnie Cantrell, Hannah Lachance, Chris Bernier, Brenda M. Murdoch, S. Frattini, Andrea Talenti, Paola Crepaldi, Stephanie McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDNA methylationEvolutionary biologyGeneticsDNAComputational biologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic mechanisms may provide a novel prospective of bobcat (Lynx rufus) adaptation to habitat loss/fragmentation. Previous research has focused on bobcat behavior and genetics, but epigenetics has not been studied in bobcat. The aim of this study was to determine the quantity of global DNA methylation in the liver of 30 bobcats. DNA was extracted from liver samples obtained from the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. The percent of global DNA methylation was quantified and calculated using the MethylFlash TM Methylated DNA 5-mC Quantification Kit from Epigentek (Farmingdale, NY, USA). Age, sex, and carcass weight data were collected at sampling and analyzed with percent of global DNA methylation. Global DNA methylation was found to range from 0.46% to 2.76%. Age ranged from <1 to 12 years old and weight ranged from 3.18 to 13.61 kg. Further analysis of differential methylation may provide insight into novel means of bobcat conservation within different regions of Vermont. These results reinforce the need for genome-wide epigenetic studies in conservation biology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation→French-language works237,207→