MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390738853 · doi:10.1186/s13104-023-06673-9

Simultaneous assessment of mitochondrial DNA copy number and nuclear epigenetic age towards predictive models of development and aging

2024· article· en· W4390738853 on OpenAlexafffund
Phyo W. Win, Amanda Morin, Charles Newcomb, Shiva M. Singh, Noha Gomaa, Christina A. Castellani

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersWestern UniversityGovernment of OntarioNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsEpigeneticsMitochondrial DNAComputational biologyNuclear DNADNA methylationBiologyBioinformaticsGeneticsMedicineGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Mitochondrial dysfunction and nuclear epigenetic alterations, two hallmarks of aging, are associated with aberrant development and complex disease risk. Here, we report a method for the simultaneous assessment of mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNA-CN) and DNA methylation age (DNAm age) from the same DNA extraction using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and array data, respectively. RESULT: We present methods for the concurrent estimation of mtDNA-CN and DNAm age from the same DNA samples. This includes qPCR to estimate mtDNA-CN, representing the number of circular mitochondrial genomes in a cell, and DNA methylation microarray data to estimate the epigenetic age of an individual. Further, we provide a method for the combination of these metrics into a shared metric termed 'mtEpiAge'. This approach provides a valuable tool for exploring the interplay between mitochondrial dysfunction and nuclear epigenetic alterations, and their associations with disease and aging.

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)0.001
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207