MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311681072 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15194

Amphiregulin and Growth Differentiation Factor 11 Promote Retinal Ganglion Cell Survival In Vivo through Activation of Smad3

2022· dissertation· en· W4311681072 on OpenAlexaff
Hyung-Suk Yoo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmphiregulinBiologyNeuroscienceRegeneration (biology)RetinaNeuroprotectionRetinal ganglion cellCell biologyAxonGrowth factorReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although adult neurons in the mammalian central nervous system (CNS) cannot spontaneously repair themselves after injury, a growing body of evidence indicates that genetically manipulating them can increase their intrinsic reparative ability.However, as genetic manipulation is not clinically feasible, current research continues to investigate pharmacological approaches to transiently enhance the intrinsic ability of adult CNS neurons to survive and regenerate their axons.Amphiregulin (AREG) is a unique epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) ligand that has been shown to be crucial in liver regeneration, and accumulating evidence suggests that AREG signaling can promote both survival and axon regeneration of neurons.Growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11) is a member of the transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) superfamily, and it has been shown to exert rejuvenation effects in the aged brain and promote neuronal survival in the CNS.However, it is unknown whether AREG and GDF11 are capable of inducing neuronal survival and axon regeneration in the visual system.Hence, the current study investigated: 1) the developmental and post-injury expression patterns of these two ligands and their respective receptors, EGFR and activin-like kinase 5 (ALK5), 2) the potential neuroprotective and regenerative effects of these two ligands on retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) by using optic nerve crush (ONC) model, and 3) the molecular mechanisms mediating the neuroprotective and regenerative effects of AREG and GDF11 on RGCs.Based on the western blot and immunohistochemical data, both AREG and GDF11 are consistently expressed throughout retina development, but their receptors are only upregulated during early retina development.Furthermore, AREG expression is significantly reduced in adult retina 7 days after ONC whereas GDF11 expression remains unchanged after ONC.Interestingly, while EGFR expression is only upregulated 3 days after ONC, ALK5 expression is consistently upregulated throughout the v

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNerve injury and regeneration→French-language works237,207→