MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132663478 · doi:10.1017/s0967199413000683

Serotonin receptors are selectively expressed in the avian germ cells and early embryos

2014· article· en· W2132663478 on OpenAlexfundno aff
U. Stępińska, Takashi Kuwana, Bożenna Olszańska

Bibliographic record

VenueZygote · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsReceptorEmbryo5-HT receptorSerotoninGastrulationBiologyQuailCell biologyAndrologyMolecular biologyEndocrinologyEmbryogenesisGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expression of nine serotonin (5-HT) receptor transcripts was studied using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in germ cells, cleavage and gastrulation stages of Japanese quail, and qPCR for 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors in oocytes and embryos. We show the presence/absence of nine serotonin transcripts known in birds for receptors 5-HT1A, 5-HT1F, 5-HT2B, 5-HT2C, 5-HT3, 5-HT4, 5-HT5A, 5-HT6 and 5-HT7A in avian germ cells and early embryos. The absence of 5-HT3 and 5-HT5A in primordial germ cells and of 5-HT3 and 5-HT7A in sperm is characteristic. All transcripts appeared in oocytes at all stages (except for 5-HT3 and 5-HT5A transcripts) and all were present in cleaving embryos and at gastrulation, except for 5-HT3, which was permanently observed as late as in stage 4. Interestingly, 5-HT3 and 5-HT5A receptors accumulated in 3-mm and F1 oocytes but were degraded at ovulation and started to be re-transcribed in cleavage stage II embryos and beyond. The selective appearance of 5-HT receptors in germ cells and early embryos supports the hypothesis that serotonin may act as a signalling molecule at early stages of germ line and embryo differentiation via individual receptors present during different stages, when specialized communication systems are not yet developed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZygoteSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207