MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087584071 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2020.524369

The Interaction of Aging and Cellular Stress Contributes to Pathogenesis in Mouse and Human Huntington Disease Neurons

2020· article· en· W3087584071 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Machiela, Ritika Jeloka, Nicholas S. Caron, Shagun Mehta, Mandi E. Schmidt, Helen J. E. Baddeley, Colton M. Tom, Nalini Polturi, Yuanyun Xie, Virginia B. Mattis, Michael R. Hayden, Amber L. Southwell

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Central FloridaHuntington's Disease Society of America
KeywordsPathogenesisDiseaseNeuroscienceHuntington's diseaseBiologyPsychologyMedicineImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) gene. While mutant HTT is present ubiquitously throughout life, HD onset typically occurs in mid-life. Oxidative damage accumulates in the aging brain and is a feature of HD. We sought to interrogate the roles and interaction of age and oxidative stress in HD using primary Hu97/18 mouse neurons, neurons differentiated from HD patient induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and the brains of HD mice. We find that primary neurons must be matured in culture for canonical stress responses to occur. Furthermore, when aging is accelerated in mature HD neurons, mutant HTT accumulates and sensitivity to oxidative stress is selectively enhanced. Furthermore, we observe HD-specific phenotypes in neurons and mouse brains that have undergone accelerated aging, including a selective increase in DNA damage. These findings suggest a role for aging in HD pathogenesis and an interaction between the biological age of HD neurons and sensitivity to exogenous stress.

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)0.002
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207