MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518584643 · doi:10.1139/gen-2016-0069

The <i>HtrA2 Drosophila</i> model of Parkinson’s disease is suppressed by the pro-survival <i>Bcl-2</i> <i>Buffy</i>

2016· article· en· W2518584643 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
P Githure M'angale, Brian E. Staveley

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsBiologyDrosophila melanogasterBuffy coatCaspasePhenotypeDopaminergicLoss functionCell biologyApoptosisProgrammed cell deathGeneticsNeuroscienceImmunologyGeneDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutations in High temperature requirement A2 (HtrA2), also designated PARK13, which lead to the loss of its protease activity, have been associated with Parkinson's disease (PD). HtrA2 is a mitochondrial protease that translocates to the cytosol upon the initiation of apoptosis where it participates in the abrogation of inhibitors of apoptosis (IAP) inhibition of caspases. Here, we demonstrate that the loss of the HtrA2 function in the dopaminergic neurons of Drosophila melanogaster results in PD-like phenotypes, and we attempt to restore the age-dependent loss in locomotor ability by co-expressing the sole pro-survival Bcl-2 homologue Buffy. The inhibition of HtrA2 in the dopaminergic neurons of Drosophila resulted in shortened lifespan and impaired climbing ability, and the overexpression of Buffy rescued the reduction in lifespan and the age-dependent loss of locomotor ability. In supportive experiments, the inhibition of HtrA2 in the Drosophila eye results in eye defects, marked by reduction in ommatidia number and increased disruption of the ommatidial array; phenotypes that are suppressed by the overexpression of Buffy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207