MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023047993 · doi:10.1142/s0219635210002421

MICROTUBULE IONIC CONDUCTION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHER COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS

2010· review· en· W2023047993 on OpenAlexafffund
Travis J. A. Craddock, Jack A. Tuszyński, Avner Priel, Holly Freedman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative Neuroscience · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Cancer FoundationMinistry of Advanced Education, Government of Alberta
KeywordsMicrotubuleCytoskeletonContext (archaeology)TubulinBiophysicsNeuronPhysicsNeuroscienceChemistryBiologyCell biologyCellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neuronal cytoskeleton has been hypothesized to play a role in higher cognitive functions including learning, memory and consciousness. Experimental evidence suggests that both microtubules and actin filaments act as biological electrical wires that can transmit and amplify electric signals via the flow of condensed ion clouds. The potential transmission of electrical signals via the cytoskeleton is of extreme importance to the electrical activity of neurons in general. In this regard, the unique structure, geometry and electrostatics of microtubules are discussed with the expected impact on their specific functions within the neuron. Electric circuit models of ionic flow along microtubules are discussed in the context of experimental data, and the specific importance of both the tubulin C-terminal tail regions, and the nano-pore openings lining the microtubule wall is elucidated. Overall, these recent results suggest that ions, condensed around the surface of the major filaments of the cytoskeleton, flow along and through microtubules in the presence of potential differences, thus acting as transmission lines propagating intracellular signals in a given cell. The significance of this conductance to the functioning of the electrically active neuron, and to higher cognitive function is also 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrative NeuroscienceSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207