MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092028353 · doi:10.1242/jcs.03332

Switch from BAX-dependent to BAX-independent germ cell loss during the development of fetal mouse ovaries

2007· article· en· W2092028353 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Alton, Teruko Taketo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGerm cellProphaseMeiosisOocyteOogenesisAndrologyCell biologySpermatogenesisGerm line developmentPopulationOvaryFolliculogenesisApoptosisGametogenesisEndocrinologyEmbryogenesisGeneticsEmbryoGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female reproductive life is limited by the oocyte/follicle pool, which has been determined by the number of germ cells to enter meiosis and subsequent loss of oocytes. It has been suggested that apoptosis accounts for the elimination of germ cells throughout oogenesis. However, female germ cells are lost continuously while they undergo distinct cell cycles in fetal and neonatal life. No convincing evidence has yet been provided to show apoptotic death of oocytes during meiotic prophase in vivo. In this study, we examined the change in the germ cell population in mice deficient of BAX, a key proapoptotic molecule. The number of germ cells, identified by GCNA1 immunolabeling, approximately doubled in ovaries of Bax(-/-) mice compared with ovaries of heterozygous Bax(+/-) mice and wild-type Bax(+/+) mice by 14.5 days post coitum (d.p.c.) and remained higher up to 24.5 d.p.c. However, there was a rapid loss of germ cells in Bax(-/-) ovaries, paralleling that in Bax(+/-) and Bax(+/+) ovaries from 14.5-24.5 d.p.c., a period in which most germ cells entered and progressed in meiotic prophase. These results suggest that, while progressing through meiotic prophase, oocytes are eliminated by a BAX-independent mechanism.

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)0.004
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 score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207