MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163464248 · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.05.002

In vivo detection of GPCR-dependent signaling using fiber photometry and FRET-based biosensors

2021· article· en· W3163464248 on OpenAlexafffund
Jace Jones-Tabah, Hanan Mohammad, Paul B. S. Clarke, Terence E. Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKyoto UniversityWeston Brain Institute
KeywordsFörster resonance energy transferBiosensorIntracellularBiologyBiophysicsComputational biologyCell biologyFluorescenceBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetically encoded fluorescent biosensors allow intracellular signaling dynamics to be tracked in live cells and tissues using optical detection. Many such biosensors are based on the principle of Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET), and we have recently developed a simple approach for in vivo detection of FRET-based biosensor signals using fiber photometry. By combining fiber photometry with FRET-based biosensors, we were able to track GPCR-dependent signaling pathways over time, and in response to drug treatments in freely-moving adult rats. Recording from specific neuronal populations, we can quantify intracellular signaling while simultaneously measuring behavioral responses. Our approach, described in detail here, uses adeno-associated viruses infused intracerebrally in order to express genetically-encoded FRET-based biosensors. After several weeks to allow biosensor expression, fiber photometry is used in order to record drug responses in real time from freely-moving adult rats. This methodology would be compatible with other mammalian species and with many biosensors. Hence, it has wide applicability across a spectrum of neuroscience research, ranging from the study of neural circuits and behavior, to preclinical drug development and screening.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207