Propriospinal neurons are sufficient for bulbospinal transmission of the locomotor command signal in the neonatal rat spinal cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently showed that propriospinal neurons contribute to bulbospinal activation of locomotor networks in the in vitro neonatal rat brainstem-spinal cord preparation. In the present study, we examined whether propriospinal neurons alone, in the absence of long direct bulbospinal transmission to the lumbar cord, can successfully mediate brainstem activation of the locomotor network. In the presence of staggered bilateral spinal cord hemisections, the brainstem was stimulated electrically while recording from lumbar ventral roots. The rostral hemisection was located between C1 and T3 and the contralateral caudal hemisection was located between T5 and mid-L1. Locomotor-like activity was evoked in 27% of the preparations, which included experiments with staggered hemisections placed only two segments apart. There was no relation between the likelihood of developing locomotor-like activity and the distance separating the two hemisections or specific level of the hemisections. In some experiments, where brainstem stimulation alone was ineffective, neurochemical excitation of propriospinal neurons (using 5-HT and NMDA) at concentrations subthreshold for producing locomotor-like activity, promoted locomotor-like activity in conjunction with brainstem stimulation. In other experiments, involving neither brainstem stimulation nor cord hemisections, the excitability of propriospinal neurons in the cervical and/or thoracic region was selectively enhanced by bath application of 5-HT and NMDA or elevation of bath K(+) concentration. These manipulations produced locomotor-like activity in the lumbar region. In total, the results suggest that propriospinal neurons are sufficient for transmission of descending locomotor command signals. This observation has implications for regeneration strategies aimed at restoration of locomotor function after 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".