MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984864188 · doi:10.1002/jnr.20425

An 8.5-kb segment of the PMP22 promoter responds to loss of axon signals during Wallerian degeneration, but does not respond to specific axonal signals during nerve regeneration

2005· article· en· W1984864188 on OpenAlexafffund
Wayel Orfali, R Nicholson, Marie‐Christine Guiot, Alan C. Peterson, G. Jackson Snipes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHereditary Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsWallerian degenerationBiologyTransgeneRemyelinationAxonMyelinSchwann cellCell biologyNeuroscienceGeneMolecular biologyGeneticsCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Altered expression of the PMP22 gene causes Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) and hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies (HNPP). We have examined the promoter activity of 8.5 kb upstream of the first coding exon of the rat peripheral myelin protein-22 (rPmp22) gene in transgenic mice. We found that the -8.5 kb rPmp22/chloramphenicol acetyl transferase (CAT)/beta-galactosidase (lacZ) construct directs reporter gene expression in a weakly developmental and tissue-specific pattern, consistent with the expression pattern of the endogenous Pmp22 gene. The -8.5 kb rPmp22/CAT/lacZ transgene responds to loss of axonal signals during Wallerian degeneration but unlike the endogenous Pmp22 gene, the transgene fails to respond to axonal signals during nerve regeneration after a sciatic nerve crush injury. In conclusion, the function of the -8.5 kb rPmp22/CAT/lacZ transgene suggests that there are separable regulatory elements in the rPmp22 gene that respond differently to axonal signals received by Schwann cells during nerve development, and during remyelination.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicHereditary Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207