MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281766425 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13071-x

Human cerebral spheroids undergo 4-aminopyridine-induced, activity associated changes in cellular composition and microrna expression

2022· article· en· W4281766425 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Parmentier, Fiona James, Elizabeth Hewitson, Craig D. C. Bailey, Nicholas Werry, Steven D. Sheridan, Roy H. Perlis, Melissa L. Perreault, Luís Gaitero, Jasmin Lalonde, Jonathan LaMarre

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversité de Montréal
FundersOVC Pet TrustNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsmicroRNA4-AminopyridineSpheroidCell biologyComposition (language)ChemistryBiologyBiophysicsBiochemistryGeneIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activity-induced neurogenesis has been extensively studied in rodents but the lack of ante mortem accessibility to human brain at the cellular and molecular levels limits studies of the process in humans. Using cerebral spheroids derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), we investigated the effects of 4-aminopyridine (4AP) on neuronal activity and associated neurogenesis. Our studies demonstrate that 4AP increases neuronal activity in 3-month-old cerebral spheroids while increasing numbers of new neurons and decreasing the population of new glial cells. We also observed a significant decrease in the expression of miR-135a, which has previously been shown to be decreased in exercise-induced neurogenesis. Predicted targets of miR-135a include key participants in the SMAD2/3 and BDNF pathways. Together, our results suggest that iPSC-derived cerebral spheroids are an attractive model to study several aspects of activity-induced neurogenesis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.256
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 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207