MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802777894 · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.03.025

INK4a/ARF Expression Impairs Neurogenesis in the Brain of Irradiated Mice

2018· article· en· W2802777894 on OpenAlexafffund
Oanh Lê, Lina Marcela Hoyos Palacio, Gilbert Bernier, Ines Batinic̈‐Haberle, Gilles R.X. Hickson, Christian Beauséjour

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for InnovationCole FoundationWarren H. and Clara Cole Foundation
KeywordsNeurogenesisBiologyDoublecortinSubventricular zoneBromodeoxyuridineMicrogliaCell biologyNeural stem cellHippocampusMolecular biologyCancer researchDentate gyrusStem cellNeuroscienceImmunologyImmunohistochemistryInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain neurogenesis is severely impaired following exposure to ionizing radiation (IR). We and others have shown that the expression of the tumor suppressor gene p16INK4a is increased in tissues exposed to IR and thus hypothesized that its expression could limit neurogenesis in the irradiated brain. Here, we found that exposure to IR leads to persistent DNA damage and the expression of p16INK4a in the hippocampus and subventricular zone regions. This was accompanied by a decline in neurogenesis, as determined by doublecortin expression and bromodeoxyuridine incorporation, an effect partially restored in Ink4a/arf-null mice. Increased neurogenesis in the absence of INK4a/ARF expression was independent of apoptosis and activation of the microglia. Moreover, treatment of irradiated mice with a superoxide dismutase mimetic or clearance of p16INK4a-expressing cells using mouse genetics failed to increase neurogenesis. In conclusion, our results suggest that IR-induced p16INK4a expression is a mechanism that limits neurogenesis.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell ReportsSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207