Accelerated axon outgrowth, guidance, and target reinnervation across nerve transection gaps following a brief electrical stimulation paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Regeneration of peripheral nerves is remarkably restrained across transection injuries, limiting recovery of function. Strategies to reverse this common and unfortunate outcome are limited. Remarkably, however, new evidence suggests that a brief extracellular electrical stimulation (ES), delivered at the time of injury, improves the regrowth of motor and sensory axons. METHODS: In this work, the authors explored and tested this ES paradigm, which was applied proximal to transected sciatic nerves in mice, and identified several novel and compelling impacts of the approach. Using thy-1 yellow fluorescent protein mice with fluorescent axons that allow serial in vivo tracking of regeneration, the morphological, electrophysiological, and behavioral indices of nerve regrowth were measured. RESULTS: The authors show that ES is associated with a 30%-50% improvement in several indices of regeneration: regrowth of axons and their partnered Schwann cells across transection sites, maturation of regenerated fibers in gaps spanning transection zones, and entry of axons into their muscle and cutaneous target zones. In parallel studies, the authors analyzed adult sensory neurons and their response to extracellular ES while plated on a novel microelectrode array construct designed to deliver the identical ES paradigm used in vivo. The ES accelerated neurite outgrowth, supporting the concept of a neuron-autonomous mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these results support a robust role for brief ES following peripheral nerve injuries in promoting regeneration. Electrical stimulation has a wider repertoire of impact than previously recognized, and its impact in vitro supports the hypothesis that a neuron-specific reprogrammed injury response is recruited by the ES protocol.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".