MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2287385677 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201509023

Neuroligin 1 regulates spines and synaptic plasticity via LIMK1/cofilin-mediated actin reorganization

2016· article· en· W2287385677 on OpenAlexafffund
An Liu, Zikai Zhou, Rui Dang, Yuehua Zhu, Junxia Qi, Guiqin He, Celeste Leung, Daniel T.S. Pak, Zhengping Jia, Wei Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBiologyCofilinNeuroliginDendritic spineCell biologyActinSynaptic plasticityNeuroscienceActin cytoskeletonCytoskeletonExcitatory postsynaptic potentialGeneticsCellInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroligin (NLG) 1 is important for synapse development and function, but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. It is known that at least some aspects of NLG1 function are independent of the presynaptic neurexin, suggesting that the C-terminal domain (CTD) of NLG1 may be sufficient for synaptic regulation. In addition, NLG1 is subjected to activity-dependent proteolytic cleavage, generating a cytosolic CTD fragment, but the significance of this process remains unknown. In this study, we show that the CTD of NLG1 is sufficient to (a) enhance spine and synapse number, (b) modulate synaptic plasticity, and (c) exert these effects via its interaction with spine-associated Rap guanosine triphosphatase-activating protein and subsequent activation of LIM-domain protein kinase 1/cofilin-mediated actin reorganization. Our results provide a novel postsynaptic mechanism by which NLG1 regulates synapse development and function.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations87
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207