MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980318291 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.21571

Comparative analysis of proneural gene expression in the embryonic cerebellum

2008· article· en· W1980318291 on OpenAlexafffund
Paola Zordan, Laura Croci, Richard Hawkes, G. Giacomo Consalez

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondazione Pierfranco e Luisa MarianiFondazione Cariplo
KeywordsBiologyCerebellumFate mappingNeurogenesisProneural genesPrimordiumEmbryonic stem cellGlutamatergicAnatomyCell biologyContext (archaeology)NeuroscienceGeneGene expressionGeneticsGlutamate receptorReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The embryonic cerebellum contains two germinative epithelia: the rhombic lip and the ventricular zone. While the lineage of glutamatergic neurons arising from the rhombic lip has been characterized, plenty remains to be learned about the factors giving rise to the array of ventricular zone-derived gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic neurons. In the present study, we describe the expression of proneural genes Mash1/Ascl1, Ngn1/Neurog1, and Ngn2/Neurog2 in the cerebellar primordium at key stages of Purkinje cell and interneuron development, and compare them with the expression of other genes active in the same context. Our results indicate that Ngn1, Ngn2 and Mash1 are expressed at relevant stages of cerebellar neurogenesis in the prospective cerebellar nuclei and in the ventricular zone, excluding the Math1/Atoh1-positive rhombic lip. Their expression domains are only partially overlapping, suggesting that they may contribute selectively to ventricular zone regionalization, giving rise to the diversity of cerebellar GABA neurons and, possibly, Purkinje cell subtypes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations128
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207