Evaluation of the effects of riluzole on adult spinal cord‐derived neural stem/progenitor cells <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riluzole, a sodium/glutamate antagonist, has shown significant neuroprotective effects in experimental models of spinal cord injury (SCI) and is currently under clinical trial for patients with SCI. However, the effect of riluzole on adult spinal cord-derived NSPCs remains unknown. In this study, we examined the effects of riluzole on NSPC survival both in vitro and in vivo. NSPCs harvested from the adult rat spinal cord were exposed to riluzole (1-30 μM) either alone or in combination with hydrogen peroxide or glutamate in vitro. Measures of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS), cell viability and proliferation were assessed. To examine the effects of riluzole on transplanted NSPCs in vivo, a rodent clip compression model of SCI was used. One week after injury, NSPCs were transplanted into the spinal cord and rats received either riluzole or vehicle treatment for two weeks (similar to the clinically accepted dosing regimen) at which time cords were processed for analysis. Exposure to riluzole (≥ 10 μM) for more than 48 h in vitro reduced NSPC viability. Riluzole treatment (1-10 μM) did not significantly affect intracellular ROS levels or cell viability in the setting of in vitro oxidative stress. While glutamate (500 μM) exposure for 96 h significantly increased adult NSPC proliferation and survival, this response was not blocked by concurrent treatment with riluzole (1-10 μM) thus supporting the notion that the known anti-glutamatergic properties of riluzole are not mediated through direct inhibition of glutamate receptors. Furthermore, riluzole treatment did not impair the survival of transplanted NSPCs in a rodent model of SCI. These results suggest that although NSPCs may have a narrow tolerance to riluzole treatment in vitro, riluzole does not impair NSPC survival at doses that would be used clinically.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".