MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254820685 · doi:10.24214/jcbps.b.7.4.101136

Few Simple Sequence Repeats in Human Hair

2017· article· en· W4254820685 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Biological and Physical Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Sequence (biology)Computational biologyBiologyComputer scienceGeneticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keratin genes are subgroup of intermediate filament (IF) genes. Keratins expressed in hair are called "hair keratins". Comparison of keratin gene sequences and structural organization has been done earlier but no study has been undertaken that compares human hair keratin genes with orthologues in chimp, orangutan, macaque and platypus, with specific references to simple sequence repeats (SSRs) or microsatellites. This study seeks presence of SSRs in human hair keratin genes and compares their positions in orthologue genes. Although the structural organization of keratin genes is largely conserved, as reported in other studies; some human keratin genes show differences in the number of exons and the lengths of exons/introns, when compared with the orthologues. The present study shows few SSRs in human hair keratin genes, where only one repeat is found in exon of Type I keratin gene KRT31, while additional repeats are present in introns. Some repeats are longer in the human genes whereas some indicate reduction in length compared with orthologues. Many repeats are present in regions that are known for intronic variations. This study revisits the comparisons of structural organization of human hair keratin genes and compares them with the orthologues. The SSRs found here could be useful for monitoring variations in human hair keratin genes that may happen due to hypermutable nature of SSRs.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical Biological and Physical SciencesSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207