MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091966631 · doi:10.1139/g00-014

Genetic analysis of<i>vein</i>function in the<i>Drosophila</i>embryonic nervous system

2000· article· en· W2091966631 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Bradley R. Lanoue, Michael D. Gordon, Robin Battye, J. Roger Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBiologyAxonAxon guidanceNervous systemCell biologySignal transductionActivator (genetics)AnatomyReceptorNeuroscienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Drosophila epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) may be activated by two ligands expressed in the embryonic nervous system, Spitz and Vein. Previous studies have established Spitz as an essential activator of EGFR signaling in nervous system development. Here, we report the pattern of expression of vein mRNA in the nervous system and characterize the contribution of vein to cell lineage and axonogenesis. The number of midline glia (MG) precursors is reduced in vein mutants before the onset of embryonic apoptosis. In contrast to spitz, mis-expression of vein does not suppress apoptosis in the MG. These data indicate that early midline EGFR signaling, requiring vein and spitz, establishes MG precursor number, whereas later EGFR signals, requiring spitz, suppress apoptosis in the MG. vein mutants show early irregularities during axon tract establishment, which resolve later to variable defasciculation and thinner intersegmental axon tracts. vein and spitz phenotypes act additively in the regulation of MG cell number, but show synergism in a midline neuronal cell number phenotype and in axon tract architecture. vein appears to act downstream of spitz to briefly amplify local EGFR activation.

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 score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations17
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207