MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002879140 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20514

Stress differentially regulates the effects of voluntary exercise on cell proliferation in the dentate gyrus of mice

2008· article· en· W2002879140 on OpenAlexaff
Timal S. Kannangara, Alina J. Webber, Joana Gil‐Mohapel, Brian R. Christie

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentate gyrusNeuroscienceTurnoverHippocampusPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been well-established that cell proliferation and neurogenesis in the adult mouse dentate gyrus (DG) can be regulated by voluntary exercise. Recent evidence has suggested that the effects of voluntary exercise can in turn be influenced by environmental factors that regulate the amount of stress an animal is exposed to. In this study, we use bromodeoxyuridine and proliferating cell nuclear antigen immunohistochemistry to show that voluntary exercise produces a significant increase in cell proliferation in the adult mouse DG in both isolated and socially housed mice. This effect on proliferation translates into an increase in neurogenesis and neuronal branching of new neurons in the mice that exercised. Although social condition did not regulate proliferation in young adult mice, an effect of social housing could be observed in mice exposed to acute restraint stress. Surprisingly, only exercising mice housed in isolated conditions showed an increase in cellular proliferation following restraint stress, whereas socially housed, exercising mice, failed to show a significant increase in proliferation. These findings indicate that social housing may increase the effects of any stressful episodes on hippocampal neurogenesis in the mouse DG.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207