MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964992642 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0244-18.2019

A Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Plays Separate Roles in Sensory Integration and Associative Learning in<i>C. elegans</i>

2019· article· en· W2964992642 on OpenAlexafffund
Glenn S. Wolfe, Vivian W. Tong, Emily Povse, Daniel M. Merritt, Gregory W. Stegeman, Stéphane Flibotte, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAssociative propertySensory systemReceptor tyrosine kinaseTropomyosin receptor kinase CTyrosine kinaseNeuroscienceROR1Associative learningBiologyCell biologyReceptorKinaseBiochemistrySignal transductionMathematicsPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Associative learning and sensory integration are two behavioral processes that involve the sensation and processing of stimuli followed by an altered behavioral response to these stimuli, with learning requiring memory formation and retrieval. We found that the cellular and molecular actions of scd-2 dissociate sensory integration and associative learning. This was discovered through investigation of a Caenorhabditis elegans mutation ( lrn-2 ( mm99 )) affecting both processes. After mapping and sequencing, lrn-2 was found to be allelic to the gene, scd-2 . scd-2 -mediated associative learning and sensory integration operate in separate neurons as separate processes. We also find that memories can form from associations that are processed and stored independently from the integration of stimuli preceding an immediate behavioral decision.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207