Combination of olfactory ensheathing cells with local versus systemic cAMP treatment after a cervical rubrospinal tract injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The failure of CNS axons to regenerate following traumatic injury is due in part to a growth-inhibitory environment in CNS as well as a weak intrinsic neuronal growth response. Olfactory ensheathing cell (OECs) transplants have been reported to create a favorable environment promoting axonal regeneration, remyelination, and functional recovery after spinal cord injury. However, in our previous experiments, OEC transplants failed to promote regeneration of rubrospinal axons through and beyond the site of a dorsolateral funiculus crush in rats. Rubrospinal neurons undergo massive cell atrophy and limited expression of regeneration-associated genes after axotomy. Using the same injury model, we tested the hypothesis that treatment of the red nucleus with cAMP, known to stimulate the intrinsic growth response in other neurons, will promote rubrospinal regeneration in combination with OEC transplants. In addition, we assessed a systemic increase of cAMP using the phosphodiesterase inhibitor rolipram. OECs prevented cavity formation, attenuated astrocytic hypertrophy and the retraction of the axotomized rubrospinal axons, and tended to reduce the overall lesion size. OEC transplantation lowered the thresholds for thermal sensitivity of both forepaws. None of our treatments, alone or in combination, promoted rubrospinal regeneration through the lesion site. However, the systemic elevation of cAMP with rolipram resulted in greater numbers of OECs and axonal density within the graft and improved motor performance in a cylinder test in conjunction with enhanced rubrospinal branching and attenuated astrocytic hypertrophy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".