MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409152767 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2025.115460

Ciliary marginal zone of the developing human retina maintains retinal progenitor cells until late gestational stages

2025· article· en· W4409152767 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kiara C. Eldred, S. Edgerton, Isabel Ortuño‐Lizarán, Juliette Wohlschlegel, Stephanie M. Sherman, Sidnee Petter, Gracious Wyatt-Draher, Dawn Hoffer, Ian A. Glass, Anna La Torre, Thomas A. Reh

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgència Valenciana de la InnovacióGeneralitat ValencianaFoundation Fighting BlindnessDamon Runyon Cancer Research FoundationHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsRetinaRetinalProgenitor cellBiologyCell biologyProgenitorMarginal zoneRetinopathy of prematurityNeuroscienceAnatomyGestational ageStem cellImmunologyGeneticsAntibodyBiochemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-mammalian vertebrates maintain a proliferative cell population at the far periphery of their retina called the ciliary marginal zone (CMZ), which contributes to retinal regeneration upon injury. Humans do not maintain a proliferative CMZ into adulthood; however, it is unknown how long in development this region continues to generate neurons. Here, we identify a population of cells in the far-peripheral retina of the human that continues to proliferate after the rest of the retina is quiescent. Single-cell RNA sequencing and 5-ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine tracing at late developmental time points reveal that this region has the capacity to produce both early- and late-born cell types late in development and a longer cell cycle than more centrally located retinal progenitor cells (RPCs). Moreover, while most RPCs exit the cell cycle with the addition of a transforming growth factor β inhibitor, early RPCs within the CMZ do not. These findings define the late stages of neurogenesis in human retinal development.

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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207