MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197170686 · doi:10.1093/biolre/ioab162

Contact-dependent cleavage of Jagged1 in oocytes reveals potential bidirectional Notch signaling during follicular growth in the mouse

2021· letter· en· W3197170686 on OpenAlexaff
Herthana Kandasamy, Qin Yang, Hugh J. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Biology and Fertility
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNotch signaling pathwayBiologyCell biologyJAG1FolliculogenesisHes3 signaling axisOvarian follicleNotch proteinsOocyteFollicular atresiaSignal transductionInternal medicineEndocrinologyFollicular phaseEmbryogenesisEmbryo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Growth and development of the ovarian follicle depends on coordinated signaling between the germ-line and somatic cells. Among the interactions so far identified is that coupling Jagged ligand, expressed in the germ cell, to the Notch receptor, expressed in granulosa cells [1]. Targeted deletion of Jag1 or Notch2 in the oocyte or granulosa cells, respectively, leads to abnormalities in primordial follicle formation [2, 3]. Defects including reduced granulosa cell proliferation and increased atresia also occur during follicular growth and are associated with subfertility [2, 4], suggesting that Jagged–Notch signaling may play a role throughout folliculogenesis. Both Jagged and Notch are anchored in the plasma membrane (reviewed in [5]). In the canonical pathway, the binding of Jagged triggers successive cleavages of Notch by a disintegrin and metalloproteinase (ADAM) and γ-secretase proteases. These release the Notch intracellular domain (NICD) that...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicReproductive Biology and FertilityFrench-language works237,207