MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918722435 · doi:10.1242/jcs.227165

Distinct functions of a cGMP-dependent protein kinase in nerve terminal growth and synaptic vesicle cycling

2019· article· en· W2918722435 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey S. Dason, Aaron M. Allen, Oscar Vasquez, Marla B. Sokolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsBiologyExocytosisNeurotransmissionEndocytic cycleCell biologySynaptic vesicleEndocytosisSynaptic vesicle recyclingVesicleBiochemistryReceptorSecretion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Sustained neurotransmission requires the tight coupling of synaptic vesicle (SV) exocytosis and endocytosis. The mechanisms underlying this coupling are poorly understood. We tested the hypothesis that a cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG), encoded by the foraging (for) gene in Drosophila melanogaster, is critical for this process using a for null mutant, genomic rescues and tissue-specific rescues. We uncoupled the exocytic and endocytic functions of FOR in neurotransmission using a temperature-sensitive shibire mutant in conjunction with fluorescein-assisted light inactivation of FOR. We discovered a dual role for presynaptic FOR, in which FOR inhibits SV exocytosis during low-frequency stimulation by negatively regulating presynaptic Ca2+ levels and maintains neurotransmission during high-frequency stimulation by facilitating SV endocytosis. Additionally, glial FOR negatively regulated nerve terminal growth through TGF-β signalling, and this developmental effect was independent of the effects of FOR on neurotransmission. Overall, FOR plays a critical role in coupling SV exocytosis and endocytosis, thereby balancing these two components to maintain sustained neurotransmission.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicPhotoreceptor and optogenetics researchFrench-language works237,207