MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4308240679 · doi:10.1101/2022.11.01.514680

Mitotic lineage adds predictive information beyond cell type in the <i>C. elegans</i> connectome

2022· preprint· en· W4308240679 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan Matelsky, Brock A. Wester, Konrad P. Körding

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLineage (genetic)BiologyCell typeContext (archaeology)CellCell divisionMitosisEvolutionary biologySomaPhenotypeTree (set theory)GeneticsNeuroscienceComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During nervous system development, repeated cell divisions of the zygote give rise to a “family tree” of neurons related by mitotic lineage. The developmental process also gives rise to neuronal connections, and neurons phenotypically converge to different cell types. Neural connections are steered by cell type, but they may be driven in part by lineage: We do not know if lineage matters for the developmental neurogenesis process. We thus asked if mitotic lineage predicts neural connections beyond cell type alone. Using three C. elegans datasets, we fit models for edge prediction tasks: predicting synaptic targets, and predicting synaptic sources. Adding the mitotic lineage improved these predictions. Our results suggest that the family tree matters for the connections made by neurons, and that developmental lineage is a variable that should be considered more deeply in models of connectome assembly.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms→French-language works237,207→