MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401757666 · doi:10.3390/ani14162442

CMAH Coding Sequence Variants in 15 Non-Domestic Felid Species Related to ABC Blood Group System

2024· article· en· W4401757666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandra Kehl, Henrike Kuder, Lily Parkinson, Amie Koenig, Ines Langbein‐Detsch, Elisabeth Mueller, Urs Giger

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneticsBiologyCoding regionComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different blood group systems have been characterized in people and other mammals. In domestic cats, the ABC blood group system plays the most important clinical role and has been investigated extensively—from the phenotype to the molecular genetics. In non-domestic felids, phenotypic ABC blood typing has been performed by different methods to detect the antigens, but the four informative CMAH markers in domestic cats were not able to identify types B and C (AB) in non-domestic cats. In this study, 138 blood samples from 15 non-domestic (wild) felid species were investigated by CMAH exonic sequencing and genotyping for putative variants causing type B or C (AB) and correlation to the respective ABC blood phenotype. A total of 58 CMAH variants were found, including 15 missense and 43 synonymous CMAH variants. One variant (c.635G>C) was concordant with blood type B (and C) in cheetahs and type B in cougars, compared to blood type A in all other felid species (lion, tiger, Canada lynx, snow leopard, clouded leopard, serval, jaguar, fishing cat, Pallas cat, bobcat, black footed cat, leopard, and sand cat). Since cheetahs and cougars belong to the genera puma, it could not be determined if the common CMAH variant is either a marker for type B (or C) or is just common in pumas.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207