MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4232140599 · doi:10.3410/f.735737585.793563402

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Critical role for Piccolo in synaptic vesicle retrieval.

2019· dataset· en· W4232140599 on OpenAlexaff
Kota Mizumoto, Mizuki Kurashina

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynaptic vesicleInformation retrievalNeuroscienceComputer scienceChemistryVesiclePsychologyBiochemistryMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss of function of the active zone protein Piccolo has recently been linked to a disease, Pontocerebellar Hypoplasia type 3, which causes brain atrophy.Here, we address how Piccolo inactivation in rat neurons adversely affects synaptic function and thus may contribute to neuronal loss.Our analysis shows that Piccolo is critical for the recycling and maintenance of synaptic vesicles.We find that boutons lacking Piccolo have deficits in the Rab5/EEA1 dependent formation of early endosomes and thus the recycling of SVs.Mechanistically, impaired Rab5 function was caused by reduced synaptic recruitment of Pra1, known to interact selectively with the zinc finger domains of Piccolo.Importantly, over-expression of GTPase deficient Rab5 or the Znf1 domain of Piccolo restores the size and recycling of SV pools.These data provide a molecular link between the active zone and endosome sorting at synapses providing hints to how Piccolo contributes to developmental and psychiatric disorders.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.087

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces→French-language works237,207→