MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234163410 · doi:10.22215/etd/2014-10488

Role of hippocampal myocyte enhancer factor 2 (MEF2) in the neuroplastic and cognitive effects of environmental stressors

2014· dissertation· en· W4234163410 on OpenAlexaff
Shuaib Syed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMef2Environmental enrichmentStressorNeurogenesisNeuroscienceHippocampusPsychologyHippocampal formationCognitionTranscription factorBiologyEnhancerGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, the role of transcription factor myocyte enhancer factor 2 (MEF2) has prevailed as a pro-survival agent against neuronal apoptosis, promoter of neuronal development and key player in memory consolidation.The current study examines whether three different types of stressors, namely psychologically relevant, immune and chemical stress would differentially influence MEF2 expression within the hippocampus.The study examines MEF2 associations to alterations in neurogenesis and performance in cognitive task (Y-maze).Our findings show non-significant differences of MEF2 expression within animals under psychologically relevant stress and those given immune insults.However, animals treated with environmental toxin paraquat showed declines in MEF2 levels within subgroups that scored low on the cognitive task.Moreover, we report novel findings of lowered neurogenesis within the hippocampus as a direct result of administration of environmental toxin and immune stressor.Our results add to the growing MEF2 body of work and open the door to future exploration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms→French-language works237,207→