Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cells (OPCs) from Adult Human Brain Expressed Distinct microRNAs Compared to OPCs in Development (P1.155)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Remyelination in multiple sclerosis has been attributed to oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (OPCs) present in brain parenchyma, but the precise identity of such progenitors and the molecular mechanisms controlling their differentiation are incompletely defined. Objective: This study addressed whether different subsets of OPCs are present in adult human brains and examined their expression of specific miRNAs implicated in OPC differentiation. The expression profile of miRNAs was then compared between adult OPCs and OPCs from developing brains. Method: We characterised OPCs based on O4-, A2B5- and MOG-directed fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) using samples of surgically resected tissue from adult and fetal (early to mid-2nd trimester) brains, and examined the expression of specific miRNAs using qRT-PCR. Results: Three subsets of putative OPCs were identified in adult brains: i) A2B5(+), ii) O4low and iii) A2B5(+)O4highMOG(+). In comparison, fetal brains contained i) A2B5(+), ii) O4(+) and iii) A2B5(+)O4(+) progenitors, but no MOG(+) cells. We showed that A2B5(+) as well as O4low late OPCs from adult brains could ensheathed dysmyelinated axons derived from shiverer mice. We found that expression of specific miRNAs in adult OPCs differs from fetal OPCs and that adult OPCs showed low to undetected expression of miRNAs that were highly expressed in O4(+) or A2B5(+)O4(+) fetal OPCs. In addition, our data also supports a temporal regulation of miRNA expression during OPC development. Conclusion: We demonstrated that i) there are phenotypically distinct subsets of OPCs in adult human brains, ii) these adult OPCs express different sets of miRNAs specific for differentiation compared to fetal OPCs. Hence, we propose that OPC differentiation in adulthood may be mechanistically different from OPC differentiation during development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".