MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterization of Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells in the Brain of the Leopard Gecko ( <i>Eublepharis macularius</i> )

2015· article· en· W1466978601 on OpenAlexafffund
Alaina Macdonald, Rebecca McDonald, Emily Gilbert, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBromodeoxyuridineProgenitor cellSOX2BiologyNeural stem cellCell biologyImmunostainingStem cellSpinal cordRegeneration (biology)AnatomyNeuroscienceImmunologyImmunohistochemistryGeneticsGeneEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many lizard species can regenerate their spinal cord following tail loss. There is increasing evidence to suggest that populations of neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) in the original spinal cord are activated after the tail has been lost, and contribute to regeneration. For the brain, less known. Here, we used a panel of NSPC markers and a bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) pulse‐chase experiment to characterize the presence of potential NSPCs in the adult brain of the leopard gecko. Prior to tail loss, we determined that some cells bordering the ventricular system (including the lateral, third and fourth ventricles) are slow‐cycling (retained BrdU for 20 weeks) and express several widely recognized NSPC markers including Sox2, Sox9 and GFAP. Following tail loss, subsets of these same cells begin to proliferate (as evidenced by PCNA immunostaining) and express an additional NSPC marker, Musashi‐1. These findings offer compelling support for the presence of NSPCs in the adult lizard brain, and suggest that similar to the spinal cord, these populations are activated in response to injury. NSERC Grant:400358

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms→French-language works237,207→