MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robo1 and Robo2 Control the Development of the Lateral Olfactory Tract

2007· article· en· W2162989206 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Coralie Fouquet, Thomas Di Meglio, Le Ma, Takahiko Kawasaki, Hua Long, Tatsumi Hirata, Marc Tessier‐Lavigne, Alain Chédotal, Kim T. Nguyen-Ba-Charvet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsAssociation pour la Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsOlfactory bulbSlitAxon guidanceBiologyNeuroscienceOlfactory systemNetrinMutantCell biologyAxonCentral nervous systemGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of olfactory bulb projections that form the lateral olfactory tract (LOT) is still poorly understood. It is known that the septum secretes Slit1 and Slit2 which repel olfactory axons in vitro and that in Slit1-/-;Slit2-/- mutant mice, the LOT is profoundly disrupted. However, the involvement of Slit receptors, the roundabout (Robo) proteins, in guiding LOT axons has not been demonstrated. We show here that both Robo1 and Robo2 receptors are expressed on early developing LOT axons, but that only Robo2 is present at later developmental stages. Olfactory bulb axons from Robo1-/-;Robo2-/- double-mutant mice are not repelled by Slit in vitro. The LOT develops normally in Robo1-/- mice, but is completely disorganized in Robo2-/- and Robo1-/-;Robo2-/- double-mutant embryos, with many LOT axons spreading along the ventral surface of the telencephalon. Finally, the position of lot1-expressing cells, which have been proposed to be the LOT guidepost cells, appears unaffected in Slit1-/-;Slit2-/- mice and in Robo1-/-;Robo2-/- mice. Together, our results indicate that Robo1 and Robo2 directly mediate the repulsive activity of Slit receptors on LOT axons, and are required for normal guidance of these axons in vivo.

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)0.001
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 score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207