MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756881418 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007026

Identification of genetic networks that act in the somatic cells of the testis to mediate the developmental program of spermatogenesis

2017· article· en· W2756881418 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael J. Fairchild, Fayeza Islam, Guy Tanentzapf

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Genetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSperm and Testicular Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologySomatic cellGermlineSpermatogenesisGeneticsCell biologyDrosophila melanogasterMitosisMeiosisGeneGerm cellEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spermatogenesis is a dynamic developmental process requiring precisely timed transitions between discrete stages. Specifically, the germline undergoes three transitions: from mitotic spermatogonia to spermatocytes, from meiotic spermatocytes to spermatids, and from morphogenetic spermatids to spermatozoa. The somatic cells of the testis provide essential support to the germline throughout spermatogenesis, but their precise role during these developmental transitions has not been comprehensively explored. Here, we describe the identification and characterization of genes that are required in the somatic cells of the Drosophila melanogaster testis for progress through spermatogenesis. Phenotypic analysis of candidate genes pinpointed the stage of germline development disrupted. Bioinformatic analysis revealed that particular gene classes were associated with specific developmental transitions. Requirement for genes associated with endocytosis, cell polarity, and microtubule-based transport corresponded with the development of spermatogonia, spermatocytes, and spermatids, respectively. Overall, we identify mechanisms that act specifically in the somatic cells of the testis to regulate spermatogenesis.

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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations49
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS GeneticsSame topicSperm and Testicular FunctionFrench-language works237,207