MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509369031 · doi:10.3389/fnmol.2015.00026

Looking downstream: the role of cyclic AMP-regulated genes in axonal regeneration

2015· review· en· W1509369031 on OpenAlexaff
Mustafa M. Siddiq, Sari S. Hannila

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Molecular Neuroscience · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCREBCell biologyMyelinDorsal root ganglionRegeneration (biology)RolipramNeuroscienceBiologyProtein kinase AOligodendrocyteTranscription factorChemistrySpinal cordKinaseCentral nervous systemPhosphodiesteraseBiochemistryGeneEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevation of intracellular cyclic AMP (cAMP) levels has proven to be one of the most effective means of overcoming inhibition of axonal regeneration by myelin-associated inhibitors such as myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG), Nogo, and oligodendrocyte myelin glycoprotein. Pharmacological manipulation of cAMP through the administration of dibutyryl cAMP or rolipram leads to enhanced axonal growth both in vivo and in vitro, and importantly, upregulation of cAMP within dorsal root ganglion neurons is responsible for the conditioning lesion effect, which indicates that cAMP plays a significant role in the endogenous mechanisms that promote axonal regeneration. The effects of cAMP are transcription-dependent and are mediated through the activation of protein kinase A (PKA) and the transcription factor cyclic AMP response element binding protein (CREB). This leads to the induction of a variety of genes, several of which have been shown to overcome myelin-mediated inhibition in their own right. In this review, we will highlight the pro-regenerative effects of arginase I (ArgI), interleukin (IL)-6, secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI), and metallothionein (MT)-I/II, and discuss their potential for therapeutic use in spinal cord injury.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Molecular NeuroscienceSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207