Lamina Propria and Olfactory Bulb Ensheathing Cells Exhibit Differential Integration and Migration and Promote Differential Axon Sprouting in the Lesioned Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfactory bulb-derived (central) ensheathing cell (OB OEC) transplants have shown significant promise in rat models of spinal cord injury, prompting the use of lamina propria-derived (peripheral) olfactory ensheathing cells (LP OECs) in both experimental and clinical trials. Although derived from a common embryonic precursor, both sources of OECs reside in different nervous system compartments postnatally, and their ability to promote regeneration and efficacy after transplantation may differ depending on both their source and mode of transplantation. Here, we have purified green fluorescent protein-expressing LP and OB OECs, assayed their biological differences in vitro, and transplanted them acutely either directly into or rostral and caudal to a dorsolateral funiculus crush. LP and OB OECs exhibit multiple morphological and antigenic similarities in vitro, and, after transplantation, they both attenuate lesion and cavity formation and promote angiogenesis, endogenous Schwann cell infiltration, and axonal sprouting. However, an increased mitotic rate and migratory ability of LP OECs in vitro was reflected in vivo by their superior ability to migrate within the spinal cord, reduce cavity formation and lesion size, and differentially stimulate outgrowth of axonal subpopulations compared with OB OECs. An undesired behavior (autotomy) was also significantly enhanced by LP OEC, over OB OEC, transplantation. These results suggest that LP and OB OECs exhibit intrinsic biological differences that, after transplantation into the lesioned CNS, result in differences in postlesion spinal cord neuropathology and anatomical and behavioral regeneration outcomes that also vary depending on direct versus rostrocaudal transplantation.
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".