MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900480346 · doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.11.014

Dual embryonic origin of the mammalian enteric nervous system

2018· article· en· W2900480346 on OpenAlexafffund
Irina Brokhman, Jie Xu, Brenda L.K. Coles, Rozita Razavi, Silvia Engert, Heiko Lickert, Robert Babona-Pilipos, Cindi M. Morshead, Eric Sibley, Chin Chen, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence FundBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation CanadaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsBiologyEndodermNeural crestEnteric nervous systemPDX1Cell biologyPancreasProgenitor cellNeural stem cellEmbryonic stem cellStem cellAnatomyEndocrinologyEmbryoGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The enteric nervous system is thought to originate solely from the neural crest. Transgenic lineage tracing revealed a novel population of clonal pancreatic duodenal homeobox-1 (Pdx1)-Cre lineage progenitor cells in the tunica muscularis of the gut that produced pancreatic descendants as well as neurons upon differentiation in vitro. Additionally, an in vivo subpopulation of endoderm lineage enteric neurons, but not glial cells, was seen especially in the proximal gut. Analysis of early transgenic embryos revealed Pdx1-Cre progeny (as well as Sox-17-Cre and Foxa2-Cre progeny) migrating from the developing pancreas and duodenum at E11.5 and contributing to the enteric nervous system. These results show that the mammalian enteric nervous system arises from both the neural crest and the endoderm. Moreover, in adult mice there are separate Wnt1-Cre neural crest stem cells and Pdx1-Cre pancreatic progenitors within the muscle layer of the gut.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental BiologySame topicCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomaliesFrench-language works237,207