MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanisms of Neuronal Alternative Splicing and Strategies for Therapeutic Interventions

2019· review· en· W2981277940 on OpenAlexafffund
Eduardo Javier López Soto, Michael J. Gandal, Thomas Gonatopoulos-Pournatzis, Elizabeth A. Heller, Diou Luo, Sika Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCharles E. Kaufman FoundationNational Institute of Mental HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthOntario Institute for Regenerative Medicine
KeywordsAlternative splicingRNA splicingBiologyNeuroscienceRNA-binding proteinGene isoformChromatinPhenotypeComputational biologyMessenger RNARNAGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many cellular and physiological processes are coordinated by regulatory networks that produce a remarkable complexity of transcript isoforms. In the mammalian nervous system, alternative pre-mRNA splicing generates functionally distinct isoforms that play key roles in normal physiology, supporting development, plasticity, complex behaviors, and cognition. Neuronal splicing programs controlled by RNA-binding proteins, are influenced by chromatin modifications and can exhibit neuronal subtype specificity. As highlighted in recent publications, aberrant alternative splicing is a major contributor to disease phenotypes. Therefore, understanding the underlying mechanisms of alternative splicing regulation and identifying functional splicing isoforms with critical phenotypic roles are expected to provide a comprehensive resource for therapeutic development, as illuminated by recent successful interventions of spinal muscular atrophy. Here, we discuss the latest progress in the study of the emerging complexity of alternative splicing mechanisms in neurons, and how these findings inform new therapies to correct and control splicing defects.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurogenetic and Muscular Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207