A novel somatostatin‐immunoreactive mossy fiber pathway asssociated with HSP25‐immunoreactive purkinje cell stripes in the mouse cerebellum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatostatin 28 immunoreactivity (Sst28-ir) identifies a specific subset of mossy fiber terminals in the adult mouse cerebellum. By using double-labeling immunohistochemistry, we determined that Sst28-ir is associated with presynaptic mossy fiber terminal rosettes, and not Purkinje cells, Golgi cells, or unipolar brush cells. Sst28-ir mossy fibers are restricted to the central zone (lobules VI/VII) and nodular zone (lobules IX, X) of the vermis, and the paraflocculus and flocculus. Within each transverse zone the mossy fiber terminal fields form a reproducible array of parasagittal stripes. The boundaries of Sst28-ir stripes align with a specific array of Purkinje cell stripes revealed by using immunocytochemistry for the small heat shock protein HSP25. In the cerebellum of the homozygous weaver mouse, in which a subpopulation of HSP25-ir Purkinje cells are located ectopically, the corresponding Sst28-ir mossy fiber projection is also ectopic, suggesting a role for a specific Purkinje cell subset in afferent pattern formation. Likewise, in the scrambler mutant mouse, Sst28-ir mossy fibers show a very close association with HSP25-ir Purkinje cell clusters. HSP25 itself does not appear to be critical for normal patterning, however: in the KJR mouse, which does not express cerebellar HSP25, Sst28 expression appears to be normal. Likewise, the Purkinje cell patterning antigens zebrin II and HSP25 are expressed normally in both Sst- and Sst-receptor knockout mice, suggesting that somatostatinergic transmission is not necessary for Purkinje cell stripe formation.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".