MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013547549 · doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2020.03.010

Applying functional genomics to the study of lamprey development and sea lamprey population control

2020· article· en· W3013547549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua R. York, Ronald E. Thresher, David W. McCauley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Great Lakes Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGreat Lakes Fishery Commission
KeywordsLampreyPetromyzonBiologyCRISPRCas9Genome editingEvolutionary biologyGenomicsOrganismEcologyPopulationModel organismGenomeFisheryGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lampreys are one of the few survivors of an ancient lineage of jawless vertebrates and have become an important study organism in numerous disciplines in the biological sciences, including evolutionary biology, embryology, ecology, physiology and biomedicine. At the same time, however, lampreys have created economic and ecological problems due, primarily, to the invasion of parasitic sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) into the North American Great Lakes and consequent negative impacts on local fish populations. Barriers, trapping and lampricide treatments have reduced these impacts, but concern for habitat restoration, non-target effects and possible evolution of resistance to lampricides suggests the need to develop additional strategies that supplement current control measures. The advent of functional genomics, and in particular CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, offers a molecular approach to this on-going problem. Here, we review the successful application of functional genetic, transcriptomic, and CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technologies in lampreys to address basic research questions in the fields of evolutionary and developmental biology. We then describe how these tools may be repurposed for use by fishery and conservation biologists to approach the problem of invasive sea lamprey from a molecular-genetic perspective.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Great Lakes ResearchSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207