MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164599230 · doi:10.1093/icb/icab098

The Dendrite Arbor of Purkinje Cells Is Altered Following to Tail Regeneration in the Leopard Gecko

2021· article· en· W3164599230 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefanie S. Bradley, Erika E. Howe, Craig D. C. Bailey, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeckoRegeneration (biology)Dendrite (mathematics)BiologyAnatomyNeuroscienceCell biologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purkinje cells of the cerebellum have a complex arborized arrangement of dendrites and are among the most distinctive cell types of the nervous system. Although the neuromorphology of Purkinje cells has been well described for some mammals and teleost fish, for most vertebrates less is known. Here we used a modified Golgi-Cox method to investigate the neuromorphology of Purkinje cells from the lizard Eublepharis macularius, the leopard gecko. Using Sholl and Branch Structure Analyses, we sought to investigate whether the neuromorphology of gecko Purkinje cells was altered in response to tail loss and regeneration. Tail loss is an evolved mechanism commonly used by geckos to escape predation. Loss of the tail represents a significant and sudden change in body length and mass, which is only partially recovered as the tail is regenerated. We predicted that tail loss and regeneration would induce a quantifiable change in Purkinje cell dendrite arborization. Post hoc comparisons of Sholl analyses data showed that geckos with regenerated tails have significant changes in dendrite diameter and the number of dendrite intersections in regions corresponding to the position of parallel fiber synapses. We propose that the neuromorphological alterations observed in gecko Purkinje cells represent a compensatory response to tail regrowth, and perhaps a role in motor learning.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207