MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of Single Retinofugal Axon Arbors in Normal and β2 Knock-Out Mice

2011· article· en· W2130486822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSuperior colliculusNeuroscienceAxonBiologyRetinaRetinal wavesRetinal ganglion cellAxon guidanceRetinalVisual systemGiant retinal ganglion cells

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maturation of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axon projections in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) and the superior colliculus (SC) relies on both molecular and activity-dependent mechanisms. Despite the increasing popularity of the mouse as a mammalian visual system model, little is known in this species about the normal development of individual RGC axon arbors or the role of activity in this process. We used a novel in vivo single RGC labeling technique to quantitatively characterize the elaboration and refinement of RGC axon arbors in the dLGN and SC in wild-type (WT) and β2-nicotinic acetylcholine receptors mutant (β2(-/-)) mice, which have perturbed retinal waves, during the developmental period when eye-specific lamination and retinotopic refinement occurs. Our results suggest that eye-specific segregation and retinotopic refinement in WT mice are not the result of refinement of richly exuberant arbors but rather the elaboration of arbors prepositioned in the proper location combined with the elimination of inappropriately targeted sparse branches. We found that retinocollicular arbors mature ∼1 week earlier than retinogeniculate arbors, although RGC axons reach the dLGN and SC at roughly the same age. We also observed striking differences between contralateral and ipsilateral RGC axon arbors in the SC but not in the LGN. These data suggest a strong influence of target specific cues during arbor maturation. In β2(-/-) mice, we found that retinofugal single axon arbors are well ramified but enlarged, particularly in the SC, indicating that activity-dependent visual map development occurs through the refinement of individual RGC arbors.

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.

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 score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.211 · 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