MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1933245065 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22130

<i>In vivo</i> contribution of nestin‐ and GLAST‐lineage cells to adult hippocampal neurogenesis

2013· article· en· W1933245065 on OpenAlexafffund
Nathan A. DeCarolis, Maxwell Mechanic, David Petřík, Adam Carlton, Jessica L. Ables, Shveta Malhotra, Robert Bachoo, Magdalena Götz, Diane C. Lagace, Amelia J. Eisch

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
KeywordsNeurogenesisNestinHippocampal formationDentate gyrusNeuroscienceBiologyNeural stem cellSubgranular zoneProgenitor cellGenetically modified mouseStem cellTransgeneCell biologySubventricular zoneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radial glia-like cells (RGCs) are the hypothesized source of adult hippocampal neurogenesis. However, the current model of hippocampal neurogenesis does not fully incorporate the in vivo heterogeneity of RGCs. In order to better understand the contribution of different RGC subtypes to adult hippocampal neurogenesis, we employed widely used transgenic lines (Nestin-CreER(T2) and GLAST::CreER(T2) mice) to explore how RGCs contribute to neurogenesis under basal conditions and after stimulation and depletion of neural progenitor cells. We first used these inducible fate-tracking transgenic lines to define the similarities and differences in the contribution of nestin- and GLAST-lineage cells to basal long-term hippocampal neurogenesis. We then explored the ability of nestin- and GLAST-lineage RGCs to contribute to neurogenesis after experimental manipulations that either ablate neurogenesis (i.c.v. application of the anti-mitotic AraC, cytosine-β-D-arabinofuranoside) or stimulate neurogenesis (wheel running). Interestingly, in both ablation and stimulation experiments, labeled RGCs in GLAST::CreER(T2) mice appear to contribute to neurogenesis, whereas RGCs in Nestin-CreER(T2) mice do not. Finally, using NestinGFP reporter mice, we expanded on previous research by showing that not all RGCs in the adult dentate gyrus subgranular zone express nestin, and therefore RGCs are antigenically heterogeneous. These findings are important for the field, as they allow appropriately conservative interpretation of existing and future data that emerge from these inducible transgenic lines. These findings also raise important questions about the differences between transgenic driver lines, the heterogeneity of RGCs, and the potential differences in progenitor cell behavior between transgenic lines. As these findings highlight the possible differences in the contribution of cells to long-term neurogenesis in vivo, they indicate that the current models of hippocampal neurogenesis should be modified to include RGC lineage heterogeneity.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations112
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207