MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Invertebrate Genomics Provide Insights Into the Origin of Synaptic Transmission

2018· book-chapter· en· W2962711121 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas W. Abrams, Wayne S. Sossin

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNeurotransmissionTranscriptomeSynapseNeuroscienceLineage (genetic)Evolutionary biologyIonotropic effectComputational biologyGlutamate receptorGeneGeneticsReceptorGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the evolution of synapses, existing molecules were exapted to serve in specific synaptic roles. Recent increased availability of assembled transcriptomes from organisms that evolved before and after the appearance of the earliest synapses provides the opportunity to trace molecular adaptations important for development of fast synaptic transmission. We discuss issues that affect transcriptome assembly and phylogenetic analysis, and which therefore impact this analysis. We use relatively recent transcriptomes of pre-bilaterians to examine the molecular evolution of three types of critical synapse-specific proteins: vesicular transporters, synaptotagmins and ionotropic glutamate receptors. The results emphasize the fundamental difficulties in defining the specific point at which a protein “assumes” a synaptic function. Nevertheless, the analysis informs our understanding of several major evolutionary topics, including the evolution of synaptic vesicles and the identity of the first neurotransmitter used for fast, synchronous transmission. This analysis is also relevant for the current discussion of whether neuronal and synaptic function evolved separately, once in ctenophores and once in cnidarians and the main bilaterian lineage.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesFrench-language works237,207