MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1480802716 · doi:10.1117/1.nph.2.3.031203

Red fluorescent proteins (RFPs) and RFP-based biosensors for neuronal imaging applications

2015· article· en· W1480802716 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurophotonics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Fluorescence Microscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Glycomics CentreUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAutofluorescenceFluorescenceBiosensorFluorescent proteinMultiplexComputer scienceNanotechnologyGreen fluorescent proteinChemistryBiologyBioinformaticsOpticsMaterials scienceBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inherent advantages of red-shifted fluorescent proteins and fluorescent protein-based biosensors for the study of signaling processes in neurons and other tissues have motivated the development of a plethora of new tools. Relative to green fluorescent proteins (GFPs) and other blue-shifted alternatives, red fluorescent proteins (RFPs) provide the inherent advantages of lower phototoxicity, lower autofluorescence, and deeper tissue penetration associated with longer wavelength excitation light. All other factors being the same, the multiple benefits of using RFPs make these tools seemingly ideal candidates for use in neurons and, ultimately, the brain. However, for many applications, the practical utility of RFPs still falls short of the preferred GFPs. We present an overview of RFPs and RFP-based biosensors, with an emphasis on their reported applications in neuroscience.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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