MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097820955 · doi:10.1002/cne.10401

Expression of voltage‐dependent potassium channels in the developing visual system of <i>Xenopus laevis</i>

2002· article· en· W2097820955 on OpenAlexaff
Natashka S. Pollock, Shane C. D. Ferguson, Sarah McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIon channel regulation and function
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXenopusBiologyNeuriteCell biologyPotassium channelGrowth coneAxonProtein subunitRetinal ganglion cellAxon guidanceRetinaRetinalNeuroscienceBiochemistryBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accumulating evidence suggests that voltage-dependent potassium (Kv) channels have important and varied roles in the development of neuronal and non-neuronal cell types. They have been implicated in processes such as proliferation, cell adhesion, migration, neurite outgrowth, and axon guidance. In this study, we used antibodies against several electrically active Kv channel alpha-subunits (Kv1-4) to describe the spatial and temporal expression patterns of Kv channel subunits in Xenopus laevis retinal ganglion cell (RGC) somata, axons, and growth cones. We found that RGCs express Kv1.3-, Kv1.5-, Kv3.4-, and Kv4.2-like subunits. Each subunit displayed unique cellular and subcellular distributions. Moreover, the expression patterns changed considerably over the major period of Xenopus retinal cell genesis and differentiation. Weak or no immunoreactivity was observed with antibodies against Kv1.1, Kv1.2, Kv1.4, Kv1.6, and Kv3.2 subunits in RGCs or other retinal cell types. In support of our previous pharmacologic evidence implicating Kv channels in RGC axon outgrowth, we found that Kv1.5-, Kv3.4-, and Kv4.2-like proteins, but not Kv1.3-like subunits, are abundantly expressed in RGC growth cones.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicIon channel regulation and functionFrench-language works237,207