Molecular cloning, sequence characteristics, and tissue expression analysis of glucagon receptor gene in Bama minipig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that the glucagon receptor (GCGR) plays an important role in the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Both pigs and humans exhibit significantly similar behaviors in their glucose and lipid metabolism. In this study, the obtained Bama minipig GCGR coding sequence was 1437 bp encoding 479 amino acids (AA), which demonstrated higher sequence homology with humans than other species. It showed the highest expression profile in the liver, followed by the lung and kidney. In addition, the three-dimensional structure analysis showed that the porcine GCGR protein also had a classic sevenfold transmembrane region and a stalk region at the N-terminus for ligand binding. The stalk region of GCGR possessed five AA variations. The ligand binding pocket of GCGR has one AA variation in the key region, none of which affected the glucagon binding verified by the crystal structure mutagenesis in humans. There was no variation found in the region of membrane anchoring, hydrophobic bond, salt bridge, and hydrogen bond. However, the Gly40Ser mutation in mice resulted in major diseases, meaning that pigs are more suitable for the evaluation of GCGR-related drugs than mice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".