MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Glycoprotein 130 Signaling Regulates<i>Notch1</i>Expression and Activation in the Self-Renewal of Mammalian Forebrain Neural Stem Cells

2003· article· en· W2137578050 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Chojnacki, Takuya Shimazaki, Christopher Gregg, Gerry Weinmaster, Samuel Weiss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsForebrainNeuroscienceNeural stem cellCell biologyExpression (computer science)BiologyStem cellCentral nervous systemComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glycoprotein130 (gp130) and Notch signaling are thought to participate in neural stem cell (NSC) self-renewal. We asked whether gp130 regulates Notch activity in forebrain epidermal growth factor (EGF)-responsive NSCs. Disruption of Notch1 using antisense or a gamma-secretase inhibitor demonstrated a requirement for Notch1 in the maintenance and proliferation of NSCs. Ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) activation of gp130 in NSCs rapidly increased Notch1 expression. NOTCH1 activation, indicated by tumor necrosis factor alpha-converting enzyme (TACE)- and presenilin-mediated processing, also increased. Infusion of EGF+CNTF into adult forebrain lateral ventricles increased periventricular NOTCH1 compared with EGF alone. Neither Hes1 (hairy and enhancer of split) nor Hes5 appeared to mediate gp130-enhanced NOTCH1 signaling that regulates NSC maintenance. This is the first example of a link between gp130 signaling and NOTCH1 in regulating NSC self-renewal.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations163
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207