MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997100021 · doi:10.1186/s13041-019-0541-5

An RNAi screen for secreted factors and cell-surface players in coordinating neuron and glia development in Drosophila

2020· article· en· W2997100021 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhengya Liu, Yixu Chen, Yong Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Brain · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsRNA interferenceDrosophila (subgenus)NeuronNeuroscienceBiologyDrosophila melanogasterCell biologyGeneGeneticsRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment of the functional nervous system requires coordinated development of neurons and glia in the embryo. Our understanding of underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms, however, remains limited. The developing Drosophila visual system is an excellent model for understanding the developmental control of the nervous system. By performing a systematic transgenic RNAi screen, we investigated the requirements of secreted proteins and cell-surface receptors for the development of photoreceptor neurons (R cells) and wrapping glia (WG) in the Drosophila visual system. From the screen, we identified seven genes whose knockdown disrupted the development of R cells and/or WG, including amalgam (ama), domeless (dome), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), kuzbanian (kuz), N-Cadherin (CadN), neuroglian (nrg), and shotgun (shg). Cell-type-specific analysis revealed that ama is required in the developing eye disc for promoting cell proliferation and differentiation, which is essential for the migration of glia in the optic stalk. Our results also suggest that nrg functions in both eye disc and WG for coordinating R-cell and WG development.

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)0.001
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BrainSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207