MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular insights into the regulation of expression of snake venom toxin genes in <i>Pseudonaja textilis</i>

2016· article· en· W4389027232 on OpenAlexaff
Xia Han, Enzo Acerbi, Quan‐zhi Ye, R. Manjunatha Kini

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVenomous Animal Envenomation and Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneVenomGene expressionRegulatory sequencemicroRNARegulation of gene expressionIntronGeneticsMolecular biologyCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snake venom toxin genes are specifically expressed in the venom gland when it is empty (e.g. after milking). Tissue‐ and time‐specific expression of toxin genes is regulated at transcriptional level by cis‐ elements and transcription factors. Recently, we have identified that multiple AG‐rich motifs in intron 1 of trocarin D, a gene encoding venom prothrombin activator in Tropidechis carinatus, silence gene expression in both mammalian and unmilked venom gland cells. Several transcription factors were identified to bound AG‐rich motifs and repress gene expression. However, the complete regulatory mechanisms of specific expression of toxin genes are still unknown. To understand this, we have sequenced the transcriptomes of both milked and unmilked venom gland tissues from a common snake P. textilis (which possesses similar AG‐rich motifs). We have compared the expression levels of different genes and performed gene ontology enrichment analysis. We also analyzed the microRNAs for their expression levels and targets of regulation in these tissues. Here I will present our findings, which will contribute to the understanding of roles of transcription factors and microRNAs in the regulation of specific expression of toxin genes. Support or Funding Information Source of research support: Academic Research Grants from NUS

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicVenomous Animal Envenomation and StudiesFrench-language works237,207