Cellular and molecular mechanisms regulating embryonic neurogenesis in the rodent olfactory epithelium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanisms that regulate cellular differentiation in developing embryos are maintained across multiple physiological systems, including the nervous system where neurons and glia are generated. The olfactory epithelium, which arises from the olfactory pit, is a stratified tissue in which the stepwise generation of neurons and support cells can easily be assessed and followed during embryogenesis and throughout adulthood. During olfactory epithelium morphogenesis, progenitor cells respond to factors that control their proliferation, survival, and differentiation in order to generate olfactory receptor neurons that detect odorants in the environment and glia-like sustentacular cells. The tight temporal regulation of expression of proneural genes in dividing progenitor cells, including Mash-1, Neurogenin-1, and NeuroD1, plays a central role in the production of olfactory receptor neurons. Multiple factors that either positively or negatively affect the generation of olfactory receptor neurons have been identified and shown to impinge on the transcriptional regulatory network in dividing progenitor cells. Several growth factors, such as FGF-8, act to promote neurogenesis by ensuring survival of progenitor cells that will give rise to olfactory receptor neurons. In contrast, other molecules, including members of the large TGF-β family of proteins, have negative impacts on neurogenesis by restricting progenitor cell proliferation and stalling their differentiation. Since recent reviews have focused on neurogenesis in the regenerating adult olfactory epithelium, this review describes neurogenesis at embryonic stages of olfactory epithelium development and summarizes our current understanding of how both cell intrinsic and extrinsic factors control this process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".