MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinct expression of neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) during murine development

2002· article· en· W2029019078 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Ingram-Crooks, Martin Holčı́k, Suzanna Drmanic, Alex MacKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIn situ hybridizationMotor neuronGene expressionSpinal cordCell biologyMolecular biologyAnatomyNeuroscienceGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The childhood spinal muscular atrophies (SMAs) are autosomal recessive neurodegenerative conditions characterized by progressive degeneration of lower motor neurons. The gene encoding NAIP (neuronal apoptosis inhibitory protein) has been proposed to be a modulator of the severity of SMA and is frequently deleted in type I SMA. In this study we have assessed NAIP (murine homologue of NAIP) transcript levels during mouse embryogenesis. NAIP mRNA is present in the developing brain and spinal cord of E9.5-E14.5 mouse embryos as detected by various in situ hybridization techniques. It is also found in the embryonic branchial arches, the nasal epithelium and in the future digits. At E16.5, NAIP mRNA transcripts were found in the marginal zone of the lateral ventricle, the follicles of the vibrissae, in the retina and in the intestinal villi. These results are the first report of NAIP gene transcript levels in embryogenesis. If motor neuron attrition occurs in the second and third trimester of gestation in SMA, the observation of NAIP transcription in the mouse spinal cord between E9.5 and E14.5 is consistent with a role for NAIP in modifying this disorder.

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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207