MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308254219 · doi:10.1242/jcs.178442

Bi-directional gap junction-mediated soma-germline communication is essential for spermatogenesis

2015· article· en· W2308254219 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Smendziuk, Anat Messenberg, A. Wayne Vogl, Guy Tanentzapf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermlineSomaBiologyCell biologyGap junctionSomatic cellHedgehogGerm cellGene knockdownSignal transductionNeuroscienceGeneticsCell cultureIntracellularGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soma-germline interactions play conserved essential roles in regulating cell proliferation, differentiation, patterning and homeostasis in the gonad. In the Drosophila testis, secreted signalling molecules of the JAK-STAT, Hedgehog, BMP and EGF pathways are used to mediate soma-germline communication. Here, we demonstrate that gap junctions may also mediate direct, bi-directional signalling between the soma and germ line. When gap junctions between the soma and germ line are disrupted, germline differentiation is blocked and germline stem cells are not maintained. In the soma, gap junctions are required to regulate proliferation and differentiation. Localization and RNAi-mediated knockdown studies reveal that gap junctions in the fly testis are heterotypic channels containing Zpg (Inx4) and Inx2 on the germ line and the soma side, respectively. Overall, our results show that bi-directional gap junction-mediated signalling is essential to coordinate the soma and germ line to ensure proper spermatogenesis in Drosophila. Moreover, we show that stem cell maintenance and differentiation in the testis are directed by gap junction-derived cues.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207