MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803756859 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1803443115

Ca <sup>2+</sup> -activated Cl current predominates in threshold response of mouse olfactory receptor neurons

2018· article· en· W2803756859 on OpenAlexaff
Rong-Chang Li, Chih-Chun Lin, Xiaozhi Ren, Sherry Jingjing Wu, Laurie L. Molday, Robert S. Molday, King‐Wai Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsOlfactory receptorReceptorOlfactionChemistryNeuroscienceBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

line, nonetheless, found subtle defects in olfactory behavior and some abnormal axonal projections from the olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) to the olfactory bulb. As such, the question regarding signal amplification by the Cl current in WT mouse remains unsettled. Recently, with suction-pipette recording, we have successfully separated in frog ORNs the CNG and Cl currents during olfactory transduction and found the Cl current to predominate in the response down to the threshold of action-potential signaling to the brain. For better comparison with the mouse data by others, we have now carried out similar current-separation experiments on mouse ORNs. We found that the Cl current clearly also predominated in the mouse olfactory response at signaling threshold, accounting for ∼80% of the response. In the absence of the Cl current, we expect the threshold stimulus to increase by approximately sevenfold.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207