MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169160857 · doi:10.1101/gad.1272305

p21 loss compromises the relative quiescence of forebrain stem cell proliferation leading to exhaustion of their proliferation capacity

2005· article· en· W2169160857 on OpenAlexaff
Tod E. Kippin, David J. Martens, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyForebrainNeural stem cellCell biologyStem cellHaematopoiesisCell growthIn vitroCell cycleCellAdult stem cellNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemGeneticsEndothelial stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult stem cells in various tissues are relatively quiescent. The cell cycle inhibitor p21cip1/waf1 (p21) has been shown to be important for maintaining hematopoietic stem cell quiescence and self-renewal. We examined the role of p21 in the regulation of adult mammalian forebrain neural stem cells (NSCs). We found that p21-/- mice between post-natal age 60-240 d have more NSCs than wild-type (+/+) controls due to higher proliferation rates of p21-/- NSCs. Thereafter, NSCs in p21-/- mice decline and are reduced in number at 16 mo relative to p21+/+ mice. Similarly, both p21-/- and p21+/+ NSCs display self-renewal in vitro; however, p21-/- NSCs display limited in vitro self-renewal (surviving a few passages, then exhausting). Thus, p21 contributes to adult NSC relative quiescence, which we propose is necessary for the life-long maintenance of NSC self-renewal because NSCs may be limited to a finite number of divisions.

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 score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations446
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207