MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229950153 · doi:10.1139/o00-073

Regulation and function of FGF8 in patterning of midbrain and anterior hindbrain

2000· article· en· W4229950153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ivor Mason, David Chambers, Huma Shamim, Jennifer Walshe, Carol Irving

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFibroblast Growth Factor Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsFGF8HindbrainMidbrainForebrainBiologyEctopic expressionNeuroscienceAnatomyFibroblast growth factorCell biologyCentral nervous systemGeneticsReceptorCell culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, an adjunct to a platform presentation at the Winternational 2000 Symposium, we summarize the recent findings of this group concerning the regulation and functions of FGF8 expressed at the isthmus of the developing brain. We show that several different FGF8 isoforms, ectopically expressed in midbrain or posterior forebrain, are able to mimic the proliferative and patterning functions previously attributed to the isthmus in tissue grafting studies. Moreover, we also show that FGF8 protein is sufficient to induce an ectopic isthmic organiser (Fgf-8+, Gbx2+) in anterior midbrain. We also provide evidence that isthmic FGF8 patterns anterior hindbrain, repressing Hox-a2 expression and setting aside a territory of the brain that includes the cerebellar anlage. We show that these effects of FGF8 are likely to be mediated via FGFR1 and be modulated by the putative FGF antagonist, Sprouty2, identified using a differential display screen. Finally, we provide evidence that the onset of Fgf8 expression is regulated by En1 and that its expression at the isthmus is subsequently maintained by a specific and direct interaction between rhombomere 1 and midbrain.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations26
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicFibroblast Growth Factor ResearchFrench-language works237,207