MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786135792 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.01.068

Netrin-1 Confines Rhombic Lip-Derived Neurons to the CNS

2018· article· en· W2786135792 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea R. Yung, Noah R. Druckenbrod, Jean‐François Cloutier, Zhuhao Wu, Marc Tessier‐Lavigne, Lisa V. Goodrich

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthRockefeller UniversityNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOregon Health and Science University
KeywordsHindbrainNetrinBrainstemBiologyAnatomyPopulationNeural tubeNeuroscienceCentral nervous systemCell biologyAxon guidanceEmbryoAxonMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During brainstem development, newborn neurons originating from the rhombic lip embark on exceptionally long migrations to generate nuclei important for audition, movement, and respiration. Along the way, this highly motile population passes several cranial nerves yet remains confined to the CNS. We found that Ntn1 accumulates beneath the pial surface separating the CNS from the PNS, with gaps at nerve entry sites. In mice null for Ntn1 or its receptor DCC, hindbrain neurons enter cranial nerves and migrate into the periphery. CNS neurons also escape when Ntn1 is selectively lost from the sub-pial region (SPR), and conversely, expression of Ntn1 throughout the mutant hindbrain can prevent their departure. These findings identify a permissive role for Ntn1 in maintaining the CNS-PNS boundary. We propose that Ntn1 confines rhombic lip-derived neurons by providing a preferred substrate for tangentially migrating neurons in the SPR, preventing their entry into nerve roots.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207