MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005700941 · doi:10.1387/ijdb.062185jh

Expression of Bmp ligands and receptors in the developing Xenopus retina

2007· article· en· W2005700941 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer C. Hocking, Sarah McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Developmental Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsBiologyXenopusRetinaCell biologyIn situ hybridizationOptic vesicleReceptorBone morphogenetic proteinAnatomyEye developmentNeuroscienceMessenger RNAGeneticsPhenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) act repeatedly in the development of nervous system tissues. While BMP signaling is critical for the early growth and patterning of the eye, we are interested in possible later functions of BMPs in the morphological development of retinal neurons and formation of synaptic connections. Therefore, we conducted an in situ hybridization analysis of the mRNA expression for the ligands Bmp2, -4 and 7 and the type Ia, Ib and II receptors (BmprIa, BmprIb and BmprII) during development of the retina of Xenopus laevis. Bmp4 mRNA is expressed in the dorsal retina and Bmp7 in the distal peripheral retina during the period of cell differentiation, while Bmp2 is not present in the eye. The type I receptors are expressed predominantly ventrally, from the optic vesicle stage until at least stage 35/36, after most cells have differentiated and many synaptic connections have formed. BmprII mRNA, however, is distributed evenly across the dorsoventral axis, with highest expression in retinal ganglion cell and inner nuclear layers.

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)0.000
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Developmental BiologySame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207