MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104962095 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101805

Nrl Is Dispensable for Specification of Rod Photoreceptors in Adult Zebrafish Despite Its Deeply Conserved Requirement Earlier in Ontogeny

2020· article· en· W3104962095 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Phillip Oel, Gavin J. Neil, Emily Dong, Spencer D. Balay, Keon Collett, W. Ted Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZebrafishOntogenyCell biologyBiologyDevelopmental biologyEvolutionary biologyAnatomyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transcription factor NRL (neural retina leucine zipper) has been canonized as the master regulator of photoreceptor cell fate in the retina. NRL is necessary and sufficient to specify rod cell fate and to preclude cone cell fate in mice. By engineering zebrafish, we tested if NRL function has conserved roles beyond mammals or beyond nocturnal species, i.e., in a vertebrate possessing a greater and more typical diversity of cone sub-types. Transgenic expression of Nrl from zebrafish or mouse was sufficient to induce rod photoreceptor cells. Zebrafish nrl −/− mutants lacked rods (and had excess UV-sensitive cones) as young larvae; thus, the conservation of Nrl function between mice and zebrafish appears sound. Strikingly, however, rods were abundant in adult nrl −/− null mutant zebrafish. Rods developed in adults despite Nrl protein being undetectable. Therefore, a yet-to-be-revealed non-canonical pathway independent of Nrl is able to specify the fate of some rod photoreceptors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0030.001

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207