MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734901170 · doi:10.1002/dvdy.24549

Loss of Dcc in the spinal cord is sufficient to cause a deficit in lateralized motor control and the switch to a hopping gait

2017· article· en· W2734901170 on OpenAlexafffund
Jimmy Peng, Julien Ferent, Qingyu Li, Mingwei Liu, Ronan Vinicius Da Silva, Hanns Ulrich Zeilhofer, Artur Kania, Ying Zhang, Frédéric Charron

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Dynamics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsSpinal cordNeuroscienceBiologyAnatomyAxon guidanceHindlimbGaitAxonPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 Dcckanga 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 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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental DynamicsSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207