MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410005067 · doi:10.1242/dev.204391

Dystroglycan mediates polarized deposition of laminin and axon ensheathment by wrapping glia

2025· article· en· W4410005067 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine Clayworth, Vanessa J. Auld

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsDystroglycanLamininBiologyCell biologyAxonExtracellular matrixDystrophinAxon guidanceAnatomyNeuroscienceSkeletal muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Drosophila peripheral nerve contains multiple layers of glial cells and an overlying extracellular matrix, which together support neuronal survival and function. The innermost glial layer, the wrapping glia (WG), ensheathes axons and facilitates action potential conduction. Recent work has identified involvement of laminin, a heterotrimeric extracellular matrix protein complex in WG development. However, the localization and function of laminin in the WG remains poorly understood. Here, we found that the α subunit, Laminin A (LanA), is dynamically expressed by WG, and loss of LanA results in a reduction in WG-axon contact. The deposition of LanA by WG is concentrated between WG and axons and is deposited preferentially around motor axons versus sensory axons. We identified Crag, a GDP-GTP exchange protein, as a factor that controls LanA deposition. We found that Dystroglycan also controls LanA deposition by the WG, and that both Dystroglycan and Dystrophin are present and necessary for WG ensheathment of axons. Thus, WG contain the highly conserved Dystroglycan/Dystrophin complex, which not only associates with deposited laminin but is necessary for the polarized deposition of laminin and the correct ensheathment of peripheral nerve axons.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207