MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918530474 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134390

Kruppel-Like Factor 4 Regulates Granule Cell Pax6 Expression and Cell Proliferation in Early Cerebellar Development

2015· article· en· W1918530474 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Zhang, Thomas J Ha, Matt Larouche, Douglas J. Swanson, Dan Goldowitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicKruppel-like factors research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsKLF4PAX6Cell biologyBiologyProgenitor cellEmbryonic stem cellCerebellumTranscription factorNeurogenesisGranule cellNeuroepithelial cellZinc finger transcription factorCellular differentiationEmbryogenesisSOX2Stem cellNeuroscienceGeneticsNeural stem cellGeneZinc fingerCentral nervous systemEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kruppel-like factor 4 (Klf4) is a transcription factor that regulates many important cellular processes in stem cell biology, cancer, and development. We used histological and molecular methods to study the expression of Klf4 in embryonic development of the normal and Klf4 knockout cerebellum. We find that Klf4 is expressed strongly in early granule cell progenitor development but tails-off considerably by the end of embryonic development. Klf4 is also co-expressed with Pax6 in these cells. In the Klf4-null mouse, which is perinatal lethal, Klf4 positively regulates Pax6 expression and regulates the proliferation of neuronal progenitors in the rhombic lip, external granular layer and the neuroepithelium. This paper is the first to describe a role for Klf4 in the cerebellum and provides insight into this gene's function in neuronal development.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicKruppel-like factors researchFrench-language works237,207