MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095691570 · doi:10.1017/exp.2020.12.pr1

Review 1: Probe the relationship between BTBD9 and MEIS1 in C. elegans and mouse

2020· peer-review· en· W3095691570 on OpenAlexaff
Aaro V. Salminen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthRestless Legs Syndrome Foundation
KeywordsHaploinsufficiencyPhenotypeGene knockdownMutantKnockout mouseBiologyGeneticsCaenorhabditis elegansEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a neurological disorder characterized by an urge to move and uncomfortable sensations. Genetic studies have identified polymorphisms in up to 19 risk loci, including MEIS1 and BTBD9. Rodents deficient in either homolog show RLS-like phenotypes. However, whether MEIS1 and BTBD9 interact in vivo is unclear. Here, with C. elegans, we observed that the hyperactive egg-laying behavior caused by loss of BTBD9 homolog was counteracted by knockdown of MEIS1 homolog. This was further investigated in mutant mice with Btbd9, Meis1, or both knocked out. The double knockout mice showed an earlier onset of the motor deficit in a wheel running test but did not have increased sensitivity to heat stimuli as observed in single knock outs. Meis1 protein level was not influenced by Btbd9 deficiency, and Btbd9 transcription was not affected by Meis1 haploinsufficiency. Our results demonstrate that MEIS1 and BTBD9 do not regulate each other.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.024

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms→French-language works237,207→