Kainic Acid-Induced Neuronal Degeneration in Hippocampal Pyramidal Neurons Is Driven by Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors: Analysis of FVB/N↔C57BL/6 Chimeras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The excitotoxic effects of kainic acid (KA) in the mouse hippocampus is strain dependent. Following KA administration, the large majority of hippocampal pyramidal cells die in the FVB/N (FVB) mouse, while the pyramidal cells of the C57BL/6 (B6) strain are largely spared. We generated aggregation chimeras between the sensitive FVB and the resistant B6 strains to investigate whether intrinsic or extrinsic features of a neuron confer cell vulnerability or resistance to KA. The constitutive expression of transgenic green fluorescence protein (GFP) or β-galactosidase expressed from the ROSA26 locus was used to mark cells in FVB or B6 mice, respectively. These makers enable the identification of cells from each parental genotype while TUNEL (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated biotinylated dUTP nick end labeling)-staining labeled dying cells. The analysis of the percentage of dying cells in FVB-GFP ↔ B6-ROSA chimeras yielded an intriguing mix of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors in the readout of cell phenotype. Thus, normally resistant B6-ROSA pyramidal neurons demonstrated an increasing sensitivity to KA, in a linear fashion, when the percentage of FVB-GFP cells was increased, either across chimeras or in different regions of the same chimera. However, the death of B6-ROSA pyramidal cells never exceeded ∼70% of the total amount of B6 neurons regardless of the amount of FVB cells in the chimeric hippocampus. In a similar manner, FVB-GFP cells show lower amounts of cell death in chimeras that are colonized by B6-ROSA cells, but again, are never fully rescued. These data indicate that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors modulate the sensitivity of hippocampal pyramidal cells to kainic acid.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".