MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010717254 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2012.00189

Group I Metabotropic Glutamate Receptor-Mediated Gene Transcription and Implications for Synaptic Plasticity and Diseases

2012· article· en· W2010717254 on OpenAlexafffund
Hansen Wang, Min Zhuo

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMetabotropic glutamate receptorMetabotropic glutamate receptor 4Synaptic plasticityNeuroscienceNeuropharmacologyMetabotropic glutamate receptor 5Metabotropic receptorMetabotropic glutamate receptor 7Metabotropic glutamate receptor 6Metabotropic glutamate receptor 1Glutamate receptorChemistryPharmacologyBiologyMedicineReceptorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stimulation of group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) initiates a wide variety of signaling pathways. Group I mGluR activation can regulate gene expression at both translational and transcriptional levels, and induces translation or transcription-dependent synaptic plastic changes in neurons. The group I mGluR-mediated translation-dependent neural plasticity has been well reviewed. In this review, we will highlight group I mGluR-induced gene transcription and its role in synaptic plasticity. The signaling pathways (PKA, CaMKs, and MAPKs) which have been shown to link group I mGluRs to gene transcription, the relevant transcription factors (CREB and NF-κB), and target proteins (FMRP and ARC) will be documented. The significance and future direction for characterizing group I mGluR-mediated gene transcription in fragile X syndrome, schizophrenia, drug addiction, and other neurological disorders will also be discussed.

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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations71
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207