MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610491086 · doi:10.1101/134791

Transcriptomic correlates of neuron electrophysiological diversity

2017· preprint· en· W2610491086 on OpenAlexaff
Shreejoy J. Tripathy, Lilah Toker, Brenna Li, Cindy-Lee Crichlow, Dmitry Tebaykin, B. Ogan Mancarci, Paul Pavlidis

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrophysiologyBiologyNeuroscienceTranscriptomeGene expressionDiversity (politics)NeuronPhenotypeGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract How neuronal diversity emerges from complex patterns of gene expression remains poorly understood. Here we present an approach to understand electrophysiological diversity through gene expression by integrating transcriptomics with intracellular electrophysiology. Using a brain-wide dataset of 34 neuron types, we identified 420 genes whose expression levels significantly correlated with variability in one or more of 11 electrophysiological parameters. The majority of these correlations were consistent in an independent sample of 12 visual cortex cell types. Many associations reported here have the potential to provide new insights into how neurons generate functional diversity, and correlations of ion channel genes like Gabrd and Scn1a (Nav1.1) with resting potential and spiking frequency are consistent with known causal mechanisms. These results suggest that despite the complexity linking gene expression to electrophysiology, there are likely some general principles that govern how individual genes establish phenotypic diversity across very different cell types.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207