MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020413154 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-64093-2

Chitinase 3-like 1 is neurotoxic in primary cultured neurons

2020· article· en· W3020413154 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Matute‐Blanch, Laura Calvo‐Barreiro, Iria Carballo‐Carbajal, Ricardo Gonzalo, Álex Sánchez‐Pla, Miquel Vila, Xavier Montalbán, Manuel Comabella

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicStudies on Chitinases and Chitosanases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaRed Española de Esclerosis MúltipleMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónGeneralitat de Catalunya
KeywordsNeuriteChitinaseMultiple sclerosisIn vitroBiologyNeuronImmunofluorescenceCentral nervous systemBiomarkerCytotoxic T cellNeurotoxicityImmune systemCell biologyRecombinant DNAImmunologyNeuroscienceMedicineToxicityEnzymeAntibodyInternal medicineBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chitinase 3-like 1 (CHI3L1) is known to play a role as prognostic biomarker in the early stages of multiple sclerosis (MS), and patients with high cerebrospinal fluid CHI3L1 levels have an increased risk for the development of neurological disability. Here, we investigated its potential neurotoxic effect by adding recombinant CHI3L1 in vitro to primary cultures of mouse cortical neurons and evaluating both neuronal functionality and survival by immunofluorescence. CHI3L1 induced a significant neurite length retraction after 24 and 48 hours of exposure and significantly reduced neuronal survival at 48 hours. The cytotoxic effect of CHI3L1 was neuron-specific and was not observed in mouse immune or other central nervous system cells. These results point to a selective neurotoxic effect of CHI3L1 in vitro and suggest a potential role of CHI3L1 as therapeutic target in MS patients.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
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 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

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicStudies on Chitinases and ChitosanasesFrench-language works237,207