MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retinoic Acid Induces Blood–Brain Barrier Development

2013· article· en· W1985474890 on OpenAlexaff
Mark R. Mizee, Desiree Wooldrik, Kim Lakeman, Bert van het Hof, Joost Drexhage, Dirk Geerts, Marianna Bugiani, Eleonora Aronica, Reina E. Mebius, Alexandre Prat, Helga E. de Vries, Arie Reijerkerk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood–brain barrierRetinoic acidCell biologyBiologyHuman brainNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemCell cultureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is crucial in the maintenance of a controlled environment within the brain to safeguard optimal neuronal function. The endothelial cells (ECs) of the BBB possess specific properties that restrict the entry of cells and metabolites into the CNS. The specialized BBB endothelial phenotype is induced during neurovascular development by surrounding cells of the CNS. However, the molecular differentiation of the BBB endothelium remains poorly understood. Retinoic acid (RA) plays a crucial role in the brain during embryogenesis. Because radial glial cells supply the brain with RA during the developmental cascade and associate closely with the developing vasculature, we hypothesize that RA is important for the induction of BBB properties in brain ECs. Analysis of human postmortem fetal brain tissue shows that the enzyme mainly responsible for RA synthesis, retinaldehyde dehydrogenase, is expressed by radial glial cells. In addition, the most important receptor for RA-driven signaling in the CNS, RA-receptor β (RARβ), is markedly expressed by the developing brain vasculature. Our findings have been further corroborated by in vitro experiments showing RA- and RARβ-dependent induction of different aspects of the brain EC barrier. Finally, pharmacologic inhibition of RAR activation during the differentiation of the murine BBB resulted in the leakage of a fluorescent tracer as well as serum proteins into the developing brain and reduced the expression levels of important BBB determinants. Together, our results point to an important role for RA in the induction of the BBB during human and mouse 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 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations204
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207