Mechanisms of Ionotropic Glutamate Receptor-Mediated Excitotoxicity in Isolated Spinal Cord White Matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord injury involves a component of glutamate-mediated white matter damage, but the cellular targets, receptors, and ions involved are poorly understood. Mechanisms of excitotoxicity were examined in an in vitro model of isolated spinal dorsal columns. Compound action potentials (CAPs) were irreversibly reduced to 43% of control after 3 hr of 1 mM glutamate exposure at 37 degrees C. AMPA (100 microM) and kainate (500 microM) had similar effects. Antagonists (1 mM kynurenic acid, 10 microM NBQX, 30 microM GYKI52466) were each equally protective against a glutamate challenge, improving mean CAP amplitude to approximately 80% versus approximately 40% without antagonist. Joro spider toxin (0.75 microM), a selective blocker of Ca(2+)-permeable AMPA receptors, was also protective to a similar degree. Ca(2+)-free perfusate virtually abolished glutamate-induced injury ( approximately 90% vs approximately 40%). MK-801 (10 microM) had no effect. Glutamate caused damage (assayed immunohistochemically by spectrin breakdown products) to astrocytes and oligodendrocytes consistent with the presence of GluR2/3 and GluR4 in these cells. Myelin was also damaged by glutamate likely mediated by GluR4 receptors detected in this region; however, axon cylinders were unaffected by glutamate, showing no increase in the level of spectrin breakdown. These data may guide the development of more effective treatment for acute spinal cord injury by addressing the additional excitotoxic component of spinal white matter damage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".