Loss of Dcc in the spinal cord is sufficient to cause a deficit in lateralized motor control and the switch to a hopping gait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Humans with heterozygous mutations in the axon guidance receptor DCC display congenital mirror movements (MMs), which are involuntary movements of body parts, such as fingers, on one side of the body that mirror voluntary movement of the opposite side. In mice, the homozygous Dcc kanga mutant allele causes synchronous MM‐like hindlimb movements during locomotion, resulting in hopping. In both human and mice, the neuroanatomical defect responsible for the deficit in lateralized motor control remains to be elucidated. Results : Using the HoxB8‐Cre line to specifically remove Dcc from the spinal cord, we found misrouting of commissural axons during their migration toward the floor plate, resulting in fewer axons crossing the midline. These mice also have a hopping gait, indicating that spinal cord guidance defects alone are sufficient to cause hopping. Conclusions : Dcc plays a role in the development of local spinal networks to ensure proper lateralization of motor control during locomotion. Local spinal cord defects following loss of Dcc cause a hopping gait in mice and may contribute to MM in humans. Developmental Dynamics 247:620–629, 2018 . © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".