MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112247346 · doi:10.1111/pcmr.12387

Melanopsin photoreception in the eye regulates light‐induced skin colour changes through the production of <i>α</i>‐<scp>MSH</scp> in the pituitary gland

2015· article· en· W2112247346 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriel E. Bertolesi, Carrie L. Hehr, Sarah McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenuePigment Cell & Melanoma Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates
KeywordsMelanopsinPituitary glandCell biologyEndocrinologyBiologyChemistryNeuroscienceInternal medicineAnatomyMedicinePhotopigmentHormoneRetina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How skin colour adjusts to circadian light/dark cycles is poorly understood. Melanopsin (Opn4) is expressed in melanophores, where in vitro studies suggest it regulates skin pigmentation through a 'primary colour response' in which light photosensitivity is translated directly into pigment movement. However, the entrainment of the circadian rhythm is regulated by a population of melanopsin-expressing retinal ganglion cells (mRGCs) in the eye. Therefore, in vivo, melanopsin may trigger a 'secondary colour response' initiated in the eye and controlled by the neuro-endocrine system. We analysed the expression of opn4m and opn4x and melanin aggregation induced by light (background adaptation) in Xenopus laevis embryos. While opn4m and opn4x are expressed at early developmental times, light-induced pigment aggregation requires the eye to become functional. Pharmacological inhibition of melanopsin suggests a model whereby mRGC activation lightens skin pigmentation via a secondary response involving negative regulation of alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (α-MSH) secretion by the pituitary.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePigment Cell & Melanoma ResearchSame topicCircadian rhythm and melatoninFrench-language works237,207