MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081092833 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0510419103

Coupling of cell migration with neurogenesis by proneural bHLH factors

2006· article· en· W2081092833 on OpenAlexaff
Weihong Ge, Fei He, Kevin J. Kim, Bruno Blanchi, Volkan Coskun, Laurent Nguyen, Xiangbing Wu, Jing Zhao, Julian Ik‐Tsen Heng, Keri Martinowich, Jifang Tao, Hao Wu, Diogo S. Castro, Magdi M. Sobeih, Gabriel Corfas, Joseph G. Gleeson, Michael E. Greenberg, François Guillemot, Yi Eve Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of California, Los Angeles
KeywordsNeurogenesisProneural genesBiologyCell biologyTranscription factorNeuroDCell fate determinationCell migrationRHOACellGeneticsGeneSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After cell birth, almost all neurons in the mammalian central nervous system migrate. It is unclear whether and how cell migration is coupled with neurogenesis. Here we report that proneural basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factors not only initiate neuronal differentiation but also potentiate cell migration. Mechanistically, proneural bHLH factors regulate the expression of genes critically involved in migration, including down-regulation of RhoA small GTPase and up-regulation of doublecortin and p35, which, in turn, modulate the actin and microtubule cytoskeleton assembly and enable newly generated neurons to migrate. In addition, we report that several DNA-binding-deficient proneural genes that fail to initiate neuronal differentiation still activate migration, whereas a different mutation of a proneural gene that causes a failure in initiating cell migration still leads to robust neuronal differentiation. Collectively, these data suggest that transcription programs for neurogenesis and migration are regulated by bHLH factors through partially distinct mechanisms.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations218
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207