MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303044895 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.24406

EGCG stabilizes growth cone filopodia and impairs retinal ganglion cell axon guidance

2016· article· en· W2303044895 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Atkinson‐Leadbeater, Carrie L. Hehr, Jill Johnston, Gabriel E. Bertolesi, Sarah McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTea Polyphenols and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsFilopodiaBiologyGrowth coneAxon guidanceRetinal ganglion cellCone (formal languages)AxonGanglionCell biologyRetinaRetinalNeuroscienceAnatomyActinComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Antioxidants such as the green tea polyphenol epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) are neuroprotective under many conditions in mature nervous systems; however, their impact has rarely been explored in developing nervous systems, in which a critical step is the formation of connections between neurons. Axons emerge from newly formed neurons and are led by a dynamic structure found at their tip called a growth cone. Here we explore the impact of EGCG on the development of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axons, which connect the eye to the brain. RESULTS: EGCG acts directly on RGC axons to increase the number of growth cone filopodia, fingerlike projections that respond to extrinsic signals, in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, EGCG exposure leads to a dramatic defect in the guided growth of RGC axons where the axons fail to make a key turn in the mid-diencephalon required to reach their target. Intriguingly, at guidance points where RGCs do not show a change in direction, EGCG has no influence on RGC axon behavior. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that EGCG stabilizes filopodia and prevents normal filopodial dynamics required for axons to change their direction of outgrowth at guidance decision points. Developmental Dynamics 245:667-677, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicTea Polyphenols and EffectsFrench-language works237,207