MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confirmation of the Assignment of the Dombrock Blood Group Locus <i>(DO)</i> to Chromosome 12p: Narrowing the Boundaries to 12p 12.3‐p13.2

2000· article· en· W4250700048 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Mauthe, Gail Coghlan, Teresa Zelinski

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus (genetics)Recombination FractionGeneticsBiologyPolymerase chain reactionGenetic markerGenetic linkageGeneChromosomeChromosome 12Molecular biologyGene mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives : Antigens belonging to the Dombrock blood group system have been well characterized serologically. Despite being reasonably polymorphic, chromosomal localization of the gene controlling Dombrock expression (DO) has proved difficult. In the past, DO had been provisionally assigned to chromosomes 1 and 4; more recently, DO was provisionally assigned to chromosome 12. The current study was undertaken in an attempt to confirm or refute this latest assignment. Materials and Methods : DNA from a series of families segregating for DO was amplified by polymerase chain reaction and analyzed for trinucleotide or tetranucleotide repeat polymorphisms of four anonymous DNA markers (D12S1042, D12S373, D12S391, D12S372) and of the von Willebrand factor gene (VWF) . Lods for or against linkage were determined between DO and each marker. Results : DO is linked to all five markers. The closest linkage was established between DO and D12S373, and DO and D12S391, with peak lods for combined paternal and maternal meioses of 7.16 at peak recombination fraction ( ) = 0.08 and 7.69 at = 0.08, respectively. Conclusions : We have confirmed the assignment of the Dombrock blood group locus to chromosome 12p and have refined its regional localization to 12p 12.3–p 13.2.

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 score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207