MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480779778 · doi:10.3389/fnmol.2016.00065

Electrotonic Coupling in the Pituitary Supports the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal Axis in a Sex Specific Manner

2016· article· en· W2480779778 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christina Göngrich, Diego García‐González, Corentin Le Magueresse, Lena C. Roth, Yasuhito Watanabe, Deborah J. Burks, Valery Grinevich, Hannah Monyer

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Molecular Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOregon National Primate Research CenterDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMax-Planck-GesellschaftKarolinska InstitutetMcGill University
KeywordsNeuroscienceCoupling (piping)Hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axisHypothalamusHypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axisPhysicsBiologyEndocrinologyHormoneLuteinizing hormoneMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gap junctions are present in many cell types throughout the animal kingdom and allow fast intercellular electrical and chemical communication between neighboring cells. Connexin-36 (Cx36), the major neuronal gap junction protein, synchronizes cellular activity in the brain, but also in other organs. Here we identify a sex-specific role for Cx36 within the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis at the level of the anterior pituitary gland (AP). We show that Cx36 is expressed in gonadotropes of the AP sustaining their synchronous activity. Cx36 ablation affects the entire downstream HPG axis in females, but not in males. We demonstrate that Cx36-mediated coupling between gonadotropes in the AP supports gonadotropin-releasing hormone-induced secretion of luteinizing hormone. Furthermore, we provide evidence for negative feedback regulation of Cx36 expression in the AP by estradiol. We thus, conclude that hormonally-controlled plasticity of gap junction communication at the level of the AP constitutes an additional mechanism affecting female reproduction.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Molecular NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207