MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153364107 · doi:10.1534/genetics.105.042911

<i>De Novo</i> GMP Synthesis Is Required for Axon Guidance in Drosophila

2005· article· en· W2153364107 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Long, Scott Cameron, Li Yu, Yong Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDe novo synthesisGuanineNucleotideVisual phototransductionGuanine nucleotide exchange factorGeneCell biologyGeneticsBiochemistryRetinalSignal transductionEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guanine nucleotides are key players in mediating growth-cone signaling during neural development. The supply of cellular guanine nucleotides in animals can be achieved via the de novo synthesis and salvage pathways. The de novo synthesis of guanine nucleotides is required for lymphocyte proliferation in animals. Whether the de novo synthesis pathway is essential for any other cellular processes, however, remains unknown. In a search for genes required for the establishment of neuronal connectivity in the fly visual system, we identify the burgundy (bur) gene as an essential player in photoreceptor axon guidance. The bur gene encodes the only GMP synthetase in Drosophila that catalyzes the final reaction of de novo GMP synthesis. Loss of bur causes severe defects in axonal fasciculation, retinotopy, and growth-cone morphology, but does not affect photoreceptor differentiation or retinal patterning. Similar defects were observed when the raspberry (ras) gene, encoding for inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase catalyzing the IMP-to-XMP conversion in GMP de novo synthesis, was mutated. Our study thus provides the first in vivo evidence to support an essential and specific role for de novo synthesis of guanine nucleotides in axon guidance.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207