MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Signaling Is a Key Regulator of the Transit-Amplifying Progenitor Pool in the Adult and Aging Forebrain

2012· article· en· W2079035204 on OpenAlexafffund
Grigorios Paliouras, Laura K. Hamilton, Anne Aumont, Sandra E. Joppé, Fanie Barnabé‐Heider, Karl J. L. Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsmTORC1ForebrainNeurogenesisBiologyCell biologyProgenitor cellPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayNeural stem cellRegulatorStem cellProgenitorSignal transductionNeuroscienceGeneticsCentral nervous systemGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult forebrain neurogenesis is dynamically regulated. Multiple families of niche-derived cues have been implicated in this regulation, but the precise roles of key intracellular signaling pathways remain vaguely defined. Here, we show that mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is pivotal in determining proliferation versus quiescence in the adult forebrain neural stem cell (NSC) niche. Within this niche, mTOR complex-1 (mTORC1) activation displays stage specificity, occurring in transiently amplifying (TA) progenitor cells but not in GFAP+ stem cells. Inhibiting mTORC1 depletes the TA progenitor pool in vivo and suppresses epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced proliferation within neurosphere cultures. Interestingly, mTORC1 inhibition induces a quiescence-like phenotype that is reversible. Likewise, mTORC1 activity and progenitor proliferation decline within the quiescent NSC niche of the aging brain, while EGF administration reactivates the quiescent niche in an mTORC1-dependent manner. These findings establish fundamental links between mTOR signaling, proliferation, and aging-associated quiescence in the adult forebrain NSC niche.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations117
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207