MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802434856 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-12051

Growth Differentiation Factor 11 Promotes Survival of Mouse Retinal Ganglion Cells in Vitro through Smad2/3 Activation

2017· dissertation· en· W2802434856 on OpenAlexaff
Hyung-Suk Yoo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyRetinaNeurogenesisIn vitroRetinal ganglion cellAxon guidanceGrowth differentiation factorAxonNeuroscienceBone morphogenetic proteinGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11) was recently identified as a rejuvenation factor that promoted neurogenesis in aged mice.Previous work has revealed that gdf11 mRNA is expressed in the developing retina, and GDF11 protein can signal retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) to grow dendrites in vitro.The developmental expression pattern of GDF11 in RGCs and the impact of GDF11 on mammalian RGCs remain unknown.The current study investigated 1) the developmental time course of GDF11 expression in RGCs, 2) the effect of GDF11 on RGC survival and axon growth in vitro, and 3) the mechanisms mediating GDF11 responses in RGCs.Retinae were collected from C57BL/6 wild-type (WT) mice at different developmental stages to evaluate the expression of GDF11 in RGCs.Postnatal RGCs were also cultured in the presence of GDF11 treatment.The results show that GDF11 does not promote axon growth but rather enhances RGC survival in vitro through activation of Smad2/3. GDF11 protects retinal ganglion cells in vitroiii

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207