MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213036963 · doi:10.3390/cells11040748

The Role of MeCP2 in Regulating Synaptic Plasticity in the Context of Stress and Depression

2022· review· en· W4213036963 on OpenAlexafffund
Carla L. Sánchez-Lafuente, Lisa E. Kalynchuk, Héctor J. Caruncho, Juan Ausió

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMECP2NeuroscienceSynaptic plasticityNeuroplasticityBiologyRett syndromeRegulatorContext (archaeology)EpigeneticsChronic stressPsychologyGeneticsGenePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2) is a transcriptional regulator that is highly abundant in the brain. It binds to methylated genomic DNA to regulate a range of physiological functions implicated in neuronal development and adult synaptic plasticity. MeCP2 has mainly been studied for its role in neurodevelopmental disorders, but alterations in MeCP2 are also present in stress-related disorders such as major depression. Impairments in both stress regulation and synaptic plasticity are associated with depression, but the specific mechanisms underlying these changes have not been identified. Here, we review the interplay between stress, synaptic plasticity, and MeCP2. We focus our attention on the transcriptional regulation of important neuronal plasticity genes such as BDNF and reelin (RELN). Moreover, we provide evidence from recent studies showing a link between chronic stress-induced depressive symptoms and dysregulation of MeCP2 expression, underscoring the role of this protein in stress-related pathology. We conclude that MeCP2 is a promising target for the development of novel, more efficacious therapeutics for the treatment of stress-related disorders such as depression.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207