MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039461220 · doi:10.3390/genes11070739

Atypical Genotypes for Canine Agouti Signaling Protein Suggest Novel Chromosomal Rearrangement

2020· article· en· W3039461220 on OpenAlexaff
Dayna L. Dreger, Heidi Anderson, Jonas Donner, Jessica Clark, Arlene Dykstra, Angela M. Hughes, Kari J. Ekenstedt

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsSturgeon Community Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyGenotypeGeneticsGeneMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canine coat color is a readily observed phenotype of great interest to dog enthusiasts; it is also an excellent avenue to explore the mechanisms of genetics and inheritance. As such, multiple commercial testing laboratories include basic color alleles in their popular screening panels, allowing for the creation of genotyped datasets at a scale not before appreciated in canine genetic research. These vast datasets have revealed rare genotype anomalies that encourage further exploration of color and pattern inheritance. We previously reported the simultaneous presence of greater than two allele variants at the Agouti Signaling Protein (ASIP) locus in a commercial genotype cohort of 11,790 canids. Here we present additional data to characterize the occurrence of anomalous ASIP genotypes. We document the detection of combinations of three or four ASIP allele variants in 17 dog breeds and Dingoes, at within-breed frequencies of 1.32–63.34%. We analyze the potential impact on phenotype that these allele combinations present, and propose mechanisms that could account for the findings, including: gene recombination, duplication, and incorrect causal variant identification. These findings speak to the accuracy of industry-wide protocols for commercial ASIP genotyping and imply that ASIP should be analyzed via haplotype, rather than using only the existing allele hierarchy, in the future.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207