MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103258656 · doi:10.2217/epi-2020-0034

<i>CACNA1C</i> Methylation: Association with Cortisol, Perceived Stress, rs1006737 and Childhood Trauma in Males

2020· article· en· W3103258656 on OpenAlexaff
Kyla Pennington, Kristel Klaus, Helene Fachim, Kevin Butler, Ksenia Trischel, Caroline Dalton, Adrian Heald, Gavin P. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenomics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsDNA methylationMethylationCortisol awakening responseMorningCpG siteBiologyGenotypingPyrosequencingEpigeneticsClinical psychologyInternal medicineGeneticsHydrocortisonePhysiologyPsychologyEndocrinologyGenotypeMedicineGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: We investigated morning cortisol, stress, rs1006737 and childhood trauma relationship with CACNA1C methylation. Materials & methods: Morning cortisol release, childhood trauma and perceived stress were collected and genotyping for rs1006737 conducted in 103 adult males. Genomic DNA extracted from saliva was bisulphite converted and using pyrosequencing methylation determined at 11 CpG sites within intron 3 of CACNA1C. Results: A significant negative correlation between waking cortisol and overall mean methylation was found and a positive correlation between CpG5 methylation and perceived stress. Conclusion: CACNA1C methylation levels may be related to cortisol release and stress perception. Future work should evaluate the influence of altered CACNA1C methylation on stress reactivity to investigate this as a potential mechanism for mental health vulnerability.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpigenomicsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207