MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002416464 · doi:10.1002/jnr.20803

Extracellular signal‐regulated kinases 1/2 are required for adult retinal ganglion cell axon regeneration induced by fibroblast growth factor‐2

2006· article· en· W2002416464 on OpenAlexaff
Przemyslaw S. Sapieha, William W. Hauswirth, Adriana Di Polo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsAxonFibroblast growth factorCell biologyNeurotrophic factorsBiologyRetinal ganglion cellNeuroscienceSignal transductionNeurotrophinFibroblast growth factor receptorRegeneration (biology)RetinaReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intracellular signaling mechanisms used by neurotrophic factors to promote axon growth in the mature, injured central nervous system are not well understood. Here we investigated the signaling cascades that control fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2)-mediated retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axon extension in vivo. For this purpose, a novel adeno-associated virus (AAV) was used to deliver the FGF-2 gene to RGCs, providing a sustained source of this neurotrophic factor. FGF-2 gene transfer led to an approximately ten-fold increase in the number of axons that extended past the lesion site compared with control nerves. Axon growth correlated with FGF-2-induced activation of the extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1/2 (Erk1/2), but not phosphoinositide 3-kinase or protein kinase C. Pharmacological inhibition of Erk1/2 activation resulted in an approximately 80% decrease in the number of axons that regenerated in the injured optic nerve. Our data demonstrate that the Erk1/2 pathway is an essential signaling component in FGF-2-mediated axon regeneration in the mature, injured visual system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations32
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207