MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378745527 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106828

The developmental profile of visual cortex astrocytes

2023· article· en· W4378745527 on OpenAlexafffund
Airi Watanabe, Connie Guo, P. Jesper Sjöström

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau en Bio-Imagerie du Quebec
KeywordsVisual cortexNeuroscienceCortex (anatomy)ChemistryCognitive scienceBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated how astrocytes in layer 5 mouse visual cortex mature over postnatal days (P) 3–50. Across this age range, resting membrane potential increased, input resistance decreased, and membrane responses became more passive with age. Two-photon (2p) and confocal imaging of dye-loaded cells revealed that gap-junction coupling increased starting ∼P7. Morphological reconstructions revealed increased branch density but shorter branches after P20, suggesting that astrocyte branches may get pruned as tiling is established. Finally, we visualized spontaneous Ca 2+ transients with 2p microscopy and found that Ca 2+ events decorrelated, became more frequent and briefer with age. As astrocytes mature, spontaneous Ca 2+ activity thus changes from relatively cell-wide, synchronous waves to local transients. Several astrocyte properties were stably mature from ∼P15, coinciding with eye opening, although morphology continued to develop. Our findings provide a descriptive foundation of astrocyte maturation, useful for the study of astrocytic impact on visual cortex critical period plasticity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207