A spatial code governs olfactory receptor choice and aligns sensory maps in the nose and brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although topographical maps organize many peripheral sensory systems, mouse olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) are thought to randomly choose which one of ∼1,100 possible olfactory receptors (ORs) to express, with spatial organization in the olfactory epithelium limited to a handful of broad anatomical "zones" that modestly restrict OR choice. Here, we reveal that each OR is instead expressed at a unique mean dorsoventral position, thereby instantiating a stereotyped receptor map in the olfactory epithelium. OSN dorsoventral identities are encoded by a coherent gene expression program, which includes key transcription factors and axon guidance molecules; use of this program reflects a dorsoventral gradient in retinoic acid signaling, translates each physical location into a spatially appropriate distribution of potential OR choices, and aligns receptor maps in the nose and brain. Spatial order in the olfactory system, therefore, arises from a continuously varying transcriptional code that precisely organizes the many discrete channels responsible for smell.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".