MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407937198 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2024-0102

Analysis of VRTN, NR6A1 and LTBP2 gene polymorphisms in Lijiang pigs and their association with the number of thoracic vertebrae

2025· article· en· W4407937198 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xinxing Dong, Jie Duan, Guoxiang Lan, Dawei Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNuclear Receptors and Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneThoracic vertebraeGeneticsBiologyAssociation (psychology)MedicineAnatomyLumbar vertebraePsychologyLumbar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore the polymorphisms of the VRTN, NR6A1, and LTBP2 genes and their association with thoracic vertebrae count in Lijiang pigs, genotyping these genes’ exons and the VRTN promoter region was conducted in 205 individuals. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Sanger sequencing were used for this purpose. Genotype and allele frequencies of the identified variants were calculated, and their associations with thoracic vertebrae count were analyzed. A total of eight missense mutations and one insertion mutation were identified. Moderate polymorphism was detected in VRTN (g.97622607G>A, g.97623006G>A, g.97623046C>T), NR6A1 (g.265347265T>C), and LTBP2 (SSC7:97765472C>G), while VRTN (g.976158896_976158897ins291) and LTBP2 (SSC7:97770379T>C) showed low polymorphism. Importantly, the VRTN variant g.976158896_976158897ins291 and the LTBP2 variant SSC7:97770379T>C were significantly associated with thoracic vertebrae count (P<0.01). Further, the NR6A1 variant g.265347265T>C was also significantly associated with thoracic vertebrae count (P<0.05). The variants g.976158896_976158897ins291 of VRTN, g.265347265T>C of NR6A1, andSSC7:97770379T>C of LTBP2 significantly influence the number of thoracic vertebrae, providing valuable insights for the molecular breeding of Lijiang pigs concerning this trait.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicNuclear Receptors and SignalingFrench-language works237,207