MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794105314 · doi:10.1002/bies.201700095

Surviving Starvation: AMPK Protects Germ Cell Integrity by Targeting Multiple Epigenetic Effectors

2018· review· en· W2794105314 on OpenAlexafffund
Émilie Demoinet, Richard Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAMPKEpigeneticsBiologyCaenorhabditis elegansCell biologyChromatinPhenotypeProtein kinase ARegulatorGerm cellStarvationGeneticsGeneKinaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute starvation can have long-term consequences that are mediated through epigenetic change. Some of these changes are affected by the activity of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), a master regulator of cellular energy homeostasis. In Caenorhabditis elegans, the absence of AMPK during a period of starvation in an early larval stage results in developmental defects following their recovery on food, while many of them become sterile. Moreover, the loss of AMPK during this quiescent period results in transgenerational phenotypes that can become progressively worse with each successive generation. Our recent data describe a chromatin-based mechanism of how AMPK mediates adjustment to acute starvation in the germ cells, however, the heritable aspect of this AMPK mutant phenotype remains unresolved. Here, we explore how AMPK might affect this process and speculate how the initial transcription that occurs in the germ cells may adversely affect subsequent germline gene expression and/or genomic integrity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207