MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471046935 · doi:10.1038/srep29489

4-aminopyridine reverses ataxia and cerebellar firing deficiency in a mouse model of spinocerebellar ataxia type 6

2016· article· en· W2471046935 on OpenAlexafffund
Sriram Jayabal, Hui Ho Vanessa Chang, Kathleen E. Cullen, Alanna J. Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRoyal SocietyMcGill University
KeywordsSpinocerebellar ataxiaAtaxiaCerebellumMotor coordinationCerebellar ataxiaPurkinje cellNeuroscienceMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinocerebellar ataxia type 6 (SCA6) is a devastating midlife-onset autosomal dominant motor control disease with no known treatment. Using a hyper-expanded polyglutamine (84Q) knock-in mouse, we found that cerebellar Purkinje cell firing precision was degraded in heterozygous (SCA6(84Q/+)) mice at 19 months when motor deficits are observed. Similar alterations in firing precision and motor control were observed at disease onset at 7 months in homozygous (SCA6(84Q/84Q)) mice, as well as a reduction in firing rate. We further found that chronic administration of the FDA-approved drug 4-aminopyridine (4-AP), which targets potassium channels, alleviated motor coordination deficits and restored cerebellar Purkinje cell firing precision to wildtype (WT) levels in SCA6(84Q/84Q) mice both in acute slices and in vivo. These results provide a novel therapeutic approach for treating ataxic symptoms associated with SCA6.

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)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations107
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207