MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095283539 · doi:10.4161/rna.32091

Unmasking the messenger

2014· review· en· W2095283539 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Saskia Hutten, Tejaswini Sharangdhar, Michael Kiebler

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA Biology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsBiologySynapseTranslation (biology)NeuroscienceSynaptic plasticityMessenger RNAGene expressionRegulation of gene expressionCell biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synaptic plasticity, learning, and memory require high temporal and spatial control of gene expression. These processes are thought to rely mainly on asymmetric mRNA transport to synapses. Already in the early days of studying mRNA transport, Wilhelm and Vale proposed a multi-step process in 1993. Since then, we have gained important novel insights into how these individual steps are controlled by research performed in various cell types and organisms. Here, we present the latest view on how dendritic mRNA localization is achieved and how local translation at the synapse is regulated. In particular, we propose that the recently observed heterogeneity of RNA-protein particle assembly in neurons might be the key for how precise gene expression in the brain is achieved. In addition, we focus on latest data dealing with translational activation of translationally repressed mRNPs at a synapse that experiences learning-induced changes in its morphology and function. Together, these new findings shed new light on how precise regulatory mechanisms can lead to synaptic plasticity and memory formation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNA BiologySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207