MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103573339 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.22250

Expression patterns of hormones, signaling molecules, and transcription factors during adenohypophysis development in the chick embryo

2010· article· en· W2103573339 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Parkinson, Michelle M. Collins, Lynn Dufresne, Aimee K. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDirectorate for Biological SciencesMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityBurroughs Wellcome Fund
KeywordsBiologyIn situ hybridizationGonadotropic cellThyrotropic cellSomatotropic cellInternal medicineEndocrinologyEmbryoImmunohistochemistryBone morphogenetic protein 4Pituitary glandMessenger RNACell biologyHormoneBone morphogenetic proteinGeneticsImmunologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chick embryo is an ideal model to study pituitary cell-type differentiation. Previous studies describing the temporal appearance of differentiated pituitary cell types in the chick embryo are contradictory. To resolve these controversies, we used RT-PCR to define the temporal onset and in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to define the spatial localization of hormone expression within the pituitary. RT-PCR detected low levels of Fshbeta (gonadotropes) and Pomc (corticotropes, melanotropes) mRNA at E4 and Gh (somatotropes), Prl (lactotropes), and Tshbeta (thyrotropes) mRNA at E8. For all hormones, sufficient accumulation of mRNA and/or protein to permit detection by in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry was observed approximately 3 days later and in all cases corresponded to a notable increase in RT-PCR product. We also describe the expression patterns of signaling (Bmp2, Bmp4, Fgf8, Fgf10, Shh) and transcription factors (Pitx1, Pitx2, cLim3) known to be important for pituitary organogenesis in other model organisms.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207