MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294718687 · doi:10.1177/26331055221123346

Mutations in the Spliceosome Component <i>prp-6</i> and Overexpression of <i>cdh-5</i> Suppress Axon Guidance Defects of <i>cdh-4</i> Mutants in <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>

2022· article· en· W4294718687 on OpenAlexafffund
Zina Aburegeba, Jie Pan, Harald Hutter

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience Insights · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCaenorhabditis elegansBiologyMutantAxon guidanceCell biologyAxonLoss functionMutationFasciculationVentral nerve cordGeneticsNetrinGeneNervous systemNeurosciencePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During nervous system development, axons must navigate to specific target areas. In Caenorhabditis elegans, the cadherin CDH-4 is required for ventral nerve cord axonal navigation, and dorsal nerve cord fasciculation. How CDH-4 mediates axon navigation and fasciculation is currently unknown. To identify genes acting together with cdh-4, we isolated mutants suppressing the axon guidance defects of cdh-4 mutants. These suppressors showed partial suppression of axonal defects in the dorsal and ventral nerve cords seen in cdh-4 mutants. We identified one suppressor gene, prp-6, which encodes a component of the spliceosome. Complete loss-of-function alleles of prp-6 are lethal, suggesting that the mutation isolated in our suppressor screen is a partial loss-of-function allele. A previous study found that RNAi-induced suppression of prp-6 leads to changes in the expression of several 100 genes including the cadherin cdh-5. We found that overexpression of cdh-5 mimics the suppression seen in prp-6 mutants, suggesting that CDH-5 can partially compensate for the loss of CDH-4.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscience InsightsSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207