MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210720781 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110310

Sex differences in developmental patterns of neocortical astroglia: A mouse translatome database

2022· article· en· W4210720781 on OpenAlexaff
Gareth M. Rurak, Stephanie Simard, Moises Freitas‐Andrade, Baptiste Lacoste, François Charih, Amanda Van Geel, John D. H. Stead, Barbara Woodside, James R. Green, Gianfilippo Coppola, Natalina Salmaso

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypeSexual differentiationHippocampusAstrocyteNeurogliaNeuroscienceGeneCentral nervous systemGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Astroglial cells are key players in the development and maintenance of neurons and neuronal networks. Astroglia express steroid hormone receptors and show rapid responses to hormonal manipulations. However, despite important sex differences in the cortex and hippocampus, few studies have examined sex differences in astroglial cells in telencephalic development. To characterize the cortical astroglial translatome in male and female mice across postnatal development, we use translating ribosome affinity purification together with RNA sequencing and immunohistochemistry to phenotype astroglia at six developmental time points. Overall, we find two distinct astroglial phenotypes between early (P1-P7) and late development (P14-adult), independent of sex. We also find sex differences in gene expression patterns across development that peak at P7 and appear to result from males reaching a mature astroglial phenotype earlier than females. These developmental sex differences could have an impact on the construction of neuronal networks and windows of vulnerability to perturbations and disease.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations91
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207