MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391452699 · doi:10.26502/jbsb.5107077

The Effects of Nitric Oxide on Choroidal Gene Expression

2024· article· en· W4391452699 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Makenzie B. Merkley, Diana Soriano, Kenneth L. Jones, Jody A. Summers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Systems Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Eye InstituteCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of Oklahoma
KeywordsNitric oxideGene expressionGeneExpression (computer science)GeneticsChemistryBiologyCell biologyComputational biologyComputer scienceEndocrinologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Nitric oxide (NO) is recognized as an important biological mediator that controls several physiological functions, and evidence is now emerging that this molecule may play a significant role in the postnatal control of ocular growth and myopia development. We therefore sought to understand the role that nitric oxide plays in visually-guided ocular growth in order to gain insight into the underlying mechanisms of this process. Methods: Choroids were incubated in organ culture in the presence of the NO donor, PAPA- NONOate (1.5 mM). Following RNA extraction, bulk RNA-seq was used to quantify and compare choroidal gene expression in the presence and absence of PAPA-NONOate. We used bioinformatics to identify enriched canonical pathways, predicted diseases and functions, and regulatory effects of NO in the choroid. Results: Upon treatment of normal chick choroids with the NO donor, PAPA-NONOate, we identified a total of 837 differentially expressed genes (259 upregulated genes, 578 down-regulated genes) compared with untreated controls. Among these, the top five upregulated genes were LSMEM1, STEAP4, HSPB9, and CCL19, and the top five down-regulated genes were CDCA3, SMC2, a novel gene (ENSALGALG00000050836), an uncharacterized gene (LOC107054158), and SPAG5. Bioinformatics predicted that NO treatment will activate pathways involved in cell and organismal death, necrosis, and cardiovascular system development, and inhibit pathways involved in cell proliferation, cell movement, and gene expression. Conclusions: The findings reported herein may provide insight into possible effects of NO in the choroid during visually regulated eye growth, and help to identify targeted therapies for the treatment of myopia and other ocular diseases.

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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Systems BiologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207