MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220990134 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.835827

A Critical Review of Zebrafish Models of Parkinson’s Disease

2022· review· en· W4220990134 on OpenAlex
Jillian M. Doyle, Roger P. Croll

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDalhousie University
KeywordsZebrafishPINK1Parkinson's diseaseDiseaseNeuroscienceParkinBiologyComputational biologyMPTPBioinformaticsMedicinePathologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide variety of human diseases have been modelled in zebrafish, including various types of cancer, cardiovascular diseases and neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Recent reviews have summarized the currently available zebrafish models of Parkinson’s Disease, which include gene-based, chemically induced and chemogenetic ablation models. The present review updates the literature, critically evaluates each of the available models of Parkinson’s Disease in zebrafish and compares them with similar models in invertebrates and mammals to determine their advantages and disadvantages. We examine gene-based models, including ones linked to Early-Onset Parkinson’s Disease: PARKIN, PINK1, DJ-1 , and SNCA ; but we also examine LRRK2, which is linked to Late-Onset Parkinson’s Disease. We evaluate chemically induced models like MPTP, 6-OHDA, rotenone and paraquat, as well as chemogenetic ablation models like metronidazole-nitroreductase. The article also reviews the unique advantages of zebrafish, including the abundance of behavioural assays available to researchers and the efficiency of high-throughput screens. This offers a rare opportunity for assessing the potential therapeutic efficacy of pharmacological interventions. Zebrafish also are very amenable to genetic manipulation using a wide variety of techniques, which can be combined with an array of advanced microscopic imaging methods to enable in vivo visualization of cells and tissue. Taken together, these factors place zebrafish on the forefront of research as a versatile model for investigating disease states. The end goal of this review is to determine the benefits of using zebrafish in comparison to utilising other animals and to consider the limitations of zebrafish for investigating human 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.345 · 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