MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110049316 · doi:10.1002/glia.21261

XIAP protects oligodendrocytes against cell death <i>in vitro</i> but has no functional role in toxic demyelination

2011· article· en· W2110049316 on OpenAlexaff
Amke Hesse, Karin Hagemeier, Alexander Lürbke, Jasmin Held, Hana Friedman, Alan Peterson, Wolfgang Brück, Tanja Kuhlmann

Bibliographic record

VenueGlia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
FundersUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsXIAPBiologyNeuroprotectionMyelinProgrammed cell deathMultiple sclerosisApoptosisOligodendrocyteInhibitor of apoptosisIn vivoCell biologyNeuroscienceImmunologyCaspaseCentral nervous systemBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oligodendroglial damage and loss are typical characteristics of demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS) and the leukodystrophies. Axonal loss is the underlying cause of permanent neurological deficits in MS and it is thought to arise from a combination of immune-mediated axonal damage and the loss of trophic support to axons from myelin sheaths after demyelination. Prevention of oligodendroglial damage or death and demyelination are therefore attractive neuroprotective treatment strategies. However, a better understanding of mechanisms leading to oligodendroglial damage and demyelination is a prerequisite for the development of such treatment options. Here, we demonstrate that X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP), the most potent member of the inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (IAP) family is expressed in oligodendrocytes in vivo and in vitro. Increased expression of XIAP is associated with protection against selected cell death pathways, whereas decreased expression increases oligodendroglial cell death in vitro. However, lack of XIAP does not modulate oligodendroglial cell death in toxic demyelination in vivo.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGliaSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207