MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966936548 · doi:10.1152/jn.00288.2003

PACAP Is Present in the Olfactory System and Evokes Calcium Transients in Olfactory Receptor Neurons

2003· article· en· W1966936548 on OpenAlexaff
Colleen C. Hegg, Edmund Au, A. Jane Roskams, Mary T. Lucero

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsOlfactory ensheathing gliaOlfactory bulbOlfactory epitheliumOlfactory receptorNeuroscienceOlfactory systemBiologyNeurotrophic factorsOlfactory Receptor CellOlfactionOlfactory nerveCell biologyCentral nervous systemReceptorEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pituitary adenylate cyclase activating peptide (PACAP), a neuroregulatory peptide, is found in germinative regions of the CNS, including the olfactory bulb, throughout adulthood. We show that 1) PACAP immunoreactivity is also present in the neonatal mouse and adult mouse and rat olfactory epithelium, 2) PACAP expression pattern differs between neonatal and adult mice, and 3) PACAP is produced by olfactory ensheathing cells. PACAP may thus be a key factor in the uniquely supportive role of olfactory ensheathing cells in regeneration of neurons from olfactory epithelium and lesioned spinal cord. Using calcium imaging, we demonstrated physiological responses to PACAP in both neonatal and adult olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs). We propose that PACAP plays an important role in normal turnover of ORNs by providing neurotrophic support during development and regeneration and neuroprotective support of mature neurons.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207