MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017916137 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083450

Deletion of C9ORF72 Results in Motor Neuron Degeneration and Stress Sensitivity in C. elegans

2013· article· en· W2017916137 on OpenAlexafffund
Martine Therrien, Guy A. Rouleau, Patrick A. Dion, J. Alex Parker

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchALS Society of CanadaMuscular Dystrophy Association
KeywordsC9orf72Amyotrophic lateral sclerosisNeurodegenerationBiologyMotor neuronCaenorhabditis elegansMutantMutationGeneticsCell biologyGeneNeuroscienceTrinucleotide repeat expansionPathologyMedicineAlleleSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An expansion of the hexanucleotide GGGGCC repeat in the first intron of C9ORF72 gene was recently linked to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. It is not known if the mutation results in a gain of function, a loss of function or if, perhaps both mechanisms are linked to pathogenesis. We generated a genetic model of ALS to explore the biological consequences of a null mutation of the Caenorhabditis elegans C9ORF72 orthologue, F18A1.6, also called alfa-1. alfa-1 mutants displayed age-dependent motility defects leading to paralysis and the specific degeneration of GABAergic motor neurons. alfa-1 mutants showed differential susceptibility to environmental stress where osmotic stress provoked neurodegeneration. Finally, we observed that the motor defects caused by loss of alfa-1 were additive with the toxicity caused by mutant TDP-43 proteins, but not by the mutant FUS proteins. These data suggest that a loss of alfa-1/C9ORF72 expression may contribute to motor neuron degeneration in a pathway associated with other known ALS genes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations183
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207