MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175436186 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf1068

Lacrimal gland budding requires PI3K-dependent suppression of EGF signaling

2021· article· en· W3175436186 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Qian Wang, Chenqi Tao, Abdul Hannan, Sungtae Yoon, Xuanyu Min, John Peregrin, Xiuxia Qu, Hongge Li, Honglian Yu, Jean J. Zhao, Xin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsBuddingLacrimal glandCell biologyEpidermal growth factorPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwaySignal transductionBiologyChemistryMedicinePathologyReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The patterning of epithelial buds is determined by the underlying signaling network. Here, we study the cross-talk between phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) and Ras signaling during lacrimal gland budding morphogenesis. Our results show that PI3K is activated by both the p85-mediated insulin-like growth factor (IGF) and Ras-mediated fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling. On the other hand, PI3K also promotes extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signaling via a direct interaction with Ras. Both PI3K and ERK are upstream regulators of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and, together, they prevent expansion of epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor expression from the lacrimal gland stalk to the bud region. We further show that this suppression of EGF signaling is necessary for induction of lacrimal gland buds. These results reveal that the interplay between PI3K, mitogen-activated protein kinase, and mTOR mediates the cross-talk among FGF, IGF, and EGF signaling in support of lacrimal gland development.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins ResearchFrench-language works237,207