MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366519497 · doi:10.7554/elife.83529.sa2

Author response: Context-dependent requirement of G protein coupling for Latrophilin-2 in target selection of hippocampal axons

2023· peer-review· en· W4366519497 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel T. Pederick, Nicole A. Perry, Huyan Meng, Zhigang He, Jonathan A. Javitch, Liqun Luo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubiculumAgonistHippocampal formationNeuroscienceCell biologyContext (archaeology)ReceptorIntracellularChemistryBiophysicsG protein-coupled receptorCleavage (geology)BiologySignal transductionBiochemistryDentate gyrus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complex brain circuits that allow animals to sense and interact with their environment start to form early during development. Throughout this period, neurons extend fiber-like projections to establish precise wiring patterns. Various types of proteins at the surface of both incoming fibers and target cells ensure that only the right partners will connect together. Latrophilin-2, for example, is a neuronal surface protein essential for the formation of accurate connections in the hippocampus, a brain region important for memory. Studded through the membrane of certain neurons, it acts as a signal-sending ligand to direct incoming fibers, with neurons that carry Latrophilin-2 repelling projections from cells that display certain protein partners. At the same time, Latrophilin-2 also allows neurons to receive chemical signals by working with intracellular signaling proteins known as G proteins, which help to relay information between cells. It remained unclear how this role as a signalling receptor participates in the wiring of the hippocampus during development. To explore this question, Pederick, Perry-Hauser et al. examined the impact of Latrophilin-2 on the connection patterns of mouse hippocampal neurons that do not normally carry this protein. Introducing Latrophilin-2 into these ‘proximal CA1 cells’ misdirected them away from their usual partners – unless Latrophilin-2 was altered so that it could not interact with G proteins. In contrast, forcing the connecting partners of CA1 cells to display normal or altered versions of Latrophilin-2 did not interfere with the protein acting as a repulsive ligand. Taken together, these results suggest that the ability of Latrophilin-2 to signal through G proteins is important for neurons that are attempting to project their fibers onto other cells, but not important when Latrophilin-2 acts in targets to direct incoming fibers from other neurons. These results show that a single protein can shape neural circuits by acting both as a signal-receiving receptor and a signal-sending ligand depending on the context. In the future, Pederick, Perry-Hauser et al. hope that their findings will shed new light on how the wiring of the brain is disrupted in neurodevelopmental disorders.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1170.032

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling→French-language works237,207→