MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193936862 · doi:10.7554/elife.04718

A genetically defined asymmetry underlies the inhibitory control of flexor–extensor locomotor movements

2015· article· en· W2193936862 on OpenAlexafffund
Olivier Britz, Jingming Zhang, Katja S. Grossmann, Jason R.B. Dyck, Jun C Kim, Susan M. Dymecki, Simon Gosgnach, Martyn Goulding

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Physical Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeuroscienceBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialMotor controlFlexor musclesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

V1 and V2b interneurons (INs) are essential for the production of an alternating flexor-extensor motor output. Using a tripartite genetic system to selectively ablate either V1 or V2b INs in the caudal spinal cord and assess their specific functions in awake behaving animals, we find that V1 and V2b INs function in an opposing manner to control flexor-extensor-driven movements. Ablation of V1 INs results in limb hyperflexion, suggesting that V1 IN-derived inhibition is needed for proper extension movements of the limb. The loss of V2b INs results in hindlimb hyperextension and a delay in the transition from stance phase to swing phase, demonstrating V2b INs are required for the timely initiation and execution of limb flexion movements. Our findings also reveal a bias in the innervation of flexor- and extensor-related motor neurons by V1 and V2b INs that likely contributes to their differential actions on flexion-extension movements.

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 score0.003

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations155
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicGenetics and Physical PerformanceFrench-language works237,207