MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750653848 · doi:10.1242/dev.151720

Notch signaling patterns neurogenic ectoderm and regulates the asymmetric division of neural progenitors in sea urchin embryos

2017· article· en· W2750653848 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan O Mellott, Jordan Thisdelle, Robert D. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyNotch signaling pathwayCell biologyNeurogenesisProgenitor cellNeural stem cellNeural tubeSignal transductionStem cellEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have examined regulation of neurogenesis by Delta/Notch signaling in sea urchin embryos. At gastrulation neural progenitors enter S-phase coincident with expression of Sp-SoxC. We used a BAC (bacterial artificial chromosome) containing GFP knocked into the Sp-SoxC locus to label neural progenitors. Live imaging and immunolocalizations indicate that Sp-SoxC-expressing cells divide producing pairs of adjacent cells expressing GFP. Over an interval of about 6 h, one cell fragments, undergoes apoptosis, and expresses high levels of activated Caspase3. A Notch reporter indicates that Notch signaling is activated in cells adjacent to cells expressing Sp-SoxC. Inhibition of γ-secretase, injection of Sp-Delta morpholinos, or CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutation of Sp-Delta results in supernumerary neural progenitors and neurons. Interfering with Notch signaling increases neural progenitor recruitment and pairs of neural progenitors. Thus, Notch signaling restricts the number of neural progenitors recruited and regulates the fate of progeny of the asymmetric division. We propose a model in which localized signaling converts ectodermal and ciliary band cells to neural progenitors that divide asymmetrically to produce a neural precursor and an apoptotic cell.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207