MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920624653 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.026

FMR1 Reactivating Treatments in Fragile X iPSC-Derived Neural Progenitors In Vitro and In Vivo

2019· article· en· W2920624653 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dan Vershkov, Nina Fainstein, Sapir Suissa, Tamar Golan‐Lev, Tamir Ben‐Hur, Nissim Benvenisty

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli FoundationTeva Pharmaceutical Industries
KeywordsFMR1ChromatinBiologyChromosomal fragile siteFragile X syndromeGene silencingCell biologyInduced pluripotent stem cellGeneticsGeneEmbryonic stem cellFragile x

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is caused primarily by a CGG repeat expansion in the FMR1 gene that triggers its transcriptional silencing. In order to investigate the regulatory layers involved in FMR1 inactivation, we tested a collection of chromatin modulators for the ability to reactivate the FMR1 locus. Although inhibitors of DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) induced the highest levels of FMR1 expression, a combination of a DNMT inhibitor and another compound potentiated the effect of reactivating treatment. To better assess the rescue effect following direct demethylation, we characterized the long-term and genome-wide effects of FMR1 reactivation and established an in vivo system to analyze FMR1-reactivating therapies. Systemic treatment with a DNMT inhibitor in mice carrying FXS induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived transplants robustly induced FMR1 expression in the affected tissue, which was maintained for a prolonged period of time. Finally, we show a proof of principle for FMR1-reactivating therapy in the context of the CNS.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207