MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083477605 · doi:10.1083/jcb.200411047

Process outgrowth in oligodendrocytes is mediated by CNP, a novel microtubule assembly myelin protein

2005· article· en· W2083477605 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Gravel, Rulin Zhang, Pierre Thibault, Peter E. Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and CancerMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotubuleBiologyTubulinCytoskeletonCell biologyMicrofilamentMyelinMutantActinMicrotubule-associated proteinBiochemistryNeuroscienceCellCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oligodendrocytes (OLs) extend arborized processes that are supported by microtubules (MTs) and microfilaments. Little is known about proteins that modulate and interact with the cytoskeleton during myelination. Several lines of evidence suggest a role for 2',3'-cyclic nucleotide 3'-phosphodiesterase (CNP) in mediating process formation in OLs. In this study, we report that tubulin is a major CNP-interacting protein. In vitro, CNP binds preferentially to tubulin heterodimers compared with MTs and induces MT assembly by copolymerizing with tubulin. CNP overexpression induces dramatic morphology changes in both glial and nonglial cells, resulting in MT and F-actin reorganization and formation of branched processes. These morphological effects are attributed to CNP MT assembly activity; branched process formation is either substantially reduced or abolished with the expression of loss-of-function mutants. Accordingly, cultured OLs from CNP-deficient mice extend smaller outgrowths with less arborized processes. We propose that CNP is an important component of the cytoskeletal machinery that directs process outgrowth in OLs.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations184
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207