MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006603569 · doi:10.3791/1155

Live Imaging of Glial Cell Migration in the Drosophila Eye Imaginal Disc

2009· article· en· W2006603569 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Cafferty, Xiaojun Xie, Kristen Browne, Vanessa J. Auld

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
KeywordsImaginal discBiologyLive cell imagingCell biologyDrosophila melanogasterNeuroscienceDrosophila (subgenus)Model organismRetinaCell migrationNeurogliaEye developmentCompound eyeAnatomyPhenotypeCellCentral nervous systemGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glial cells of both vertebrate and invertebrate organisms must migrate to final target regions in order to ensheath and support associated neurons. While recent progress has been made to describe the live migration of glial cells in the developing pupal wing (1), studies of Drosophila glial cell migration have typically involved the examination of fixed tissue. Live microscopic analysis of motile cells offers the ability to examine cellular behavior throughout the migratory process, including determining the rate of and changes in direction of growth. Paired with use of genetic tools, live imaging can be used to determine more precise roles for specific genes in the process of development. Previous work by Silies et al. (2) has described the migration of glia originating from the optic stalk, a structure that connects the developing eye and brain, into the eye imaginal disc in fixed tissue. Here we outline a protocol for examining the live migration of glial cells into the Drosophila eye imaginal disc. We take advantage of a Drosophila line that expresses GFP in developing glia to follow glial cell progression in wild type and in mutant animals.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.401 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207