MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211227988 · doi:10.1242/dev.200250

Tcf12 and NeuroD1 cooperatively drive neuronal migration during cortical development

2022· article· en· W4211227988 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aditi Singh, Arun Mahesh, Florian Noack, Beatriz Cardoso de Toledo, Federico Calegari, Vijay Tiwari

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsBiologyTranscription factorChromatinCell biologyRegulation of gene expressionGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corticogenesis consists of a series of synchronised events, including fate transition of cortical progenitors, neuronal migration, specification and connectivity. NeuroD1, a basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factor (TF), contributes to all of these events, but how it coordinates these independently is still unknown. Here, we demonstrate that NeuroD1 expression is accompanied by a gain of active chromatin at a large number of genomic loci. Interestingly, transcriptional activation of these loci relied on a high local density of adjacent bHLH TFs motifs, including, predominantly, Tcf12. We found that activity and expression levels of Tcf12 were high in cells with induced levels of NeuroD1 that spanned the transition of cortical progenitors from proliferative to neurogenic divisions. Moreover, Tcf12 forms a complex with NeuroD1 and co-occupies a subset of NeuroD1 target loci. This Tcf12-NeuroD1 cooperativity is essential for gaining active chromatin and targeted expression of genes involved in cell migration. By functional manipulation in vivo, we further show that Tcf12 is essential during cortical development for the correct migration of newborn neurons and, hence, for proper cortical lamination.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207