MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076532995 · doi:10.1155/2012/908183

Expression of SIRT1 and DBC1 in Developing and Adult Retinas

2012· article· en· W2076532995 on OpenAlexaff
S. Maloney, E. Antecka, Alexandre Nakao Odashiro, Bruno F. Fernandes, Madeline Doyle, Li‐Anne Lim, Yousef Katib, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells International · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSirtuins and Resveratrol in Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgenitor cellCell biologyRetinalBiologyProgenitorRetinaSirtuin 1PopulationRetinal regenerationCellRegeneration (biology)Stem cellNeuroscienceDownregulation and upregulationGeneticsBiochemistryMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) is a deacetylase that can regulate various biological processes via repression of transcription. Its activity has been linked to the differentiation of neural progenitor cells, although little is known about its function during retinal development. The study described herein was undertaken to evaluate the expression of SIRT1 and its innate inhibitor, DBC1, in retinal tissues and progenitor cells. We found both SIRT1 and DBC1 to be widely expressed in mouse and human retinas, with subtle differences in subcellular distribution of each protein. We further demonstrate that nuclear-localized SIRT1 is only seen in human-derived retinal progenitor cells and not in adult retinas, suggesting that this nuclear localization may be important in retinal development. Moreover, we observed cytoplasmic DBC1 in a subset of progenitor cells as well as in mature ganglion cells, indicating that the progenitor cell subset, which was comprised predominantly of small cells, may represent a population of ganglion cell precursors. Collectively, the data presented in this study provide support for SIRT1 and DBC1 as regulators of retinal development and normal retinal physiology.

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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cells InternationalSame topicSirtuins and Resveratrol in MedicineFrench-language works237,207