MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037762162

Examining the expression of potential cell-cycle regulators in the developing mouse inner ear

2014· dissertation· en· W7037762162 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInner earHair cellIn situ hybridizationEmbryonic stem cellCell cycleGene expressionHair cycleCell
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory epithelia of the mammalian inner ear are composed of hair cells and supporting cells. These cells originate from common precursors, which exit the cell cycle during late embryogenesis. Thereafter, hair cells and supporting cells maintain a non-proliferative state. As a result, hair cell loss in mammals is irreversible. If inner ear organs are to be regenerated, supporting cells must reenter the cell cycle to produce new hair cells and supporting cells. Little is known about genes that maintain the post-mitotic state of inner ear supporting cells. Previous studies revealed the role of cell cycle inhibitors such as p27kip in regulating the post-mitotic fate of differentiated supporting cells (Lowenheim H, Furness DN et al. 1999) The purpose of our study was to identify other potential regulators of cell cycle in supporting cells and determine their expression at different ages. We used the Shared Harvard Inner-Ear Laboratory data base (SHIELD; shield.hms.harvard.edu) to select 15 candidate genes following these criteria: 1) an established role in cell cycle regulation in other cell types, 2) maintained postnatal expression in mouse utricular supporting cells, and 3) not previously studied in the mouse inner ear.We used RT-PCR and in situ hybridization to determine the expression of these candidate genes in inner ear sensory epithelia. Our RT-PCR results, from mouse utricles between postnatal days 7-8, (which contained hair cells, supporting cells, and non-sensory cells) confirmed the expression of all candidate genes. Our in situ hybridization results, which came from mice at embryonic days 13.5, E15.5 and 18.5, were mixed. In some cases expression was seen mainly in supporting cells, as expected based on the SHIELD data and in other cases in hair cells or non-sensory cells. Further studies are required to test whether these genes play a role in regulating cell cycle in the mouse developing inner ear.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSpider Taxonomy and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207