MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007067483 · doi:10.1002/glia.20934

Corticospinal tract regeneration after spinal cord injury in receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase sigma deficient mice

2009· article· en· W2007067483 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth J. Fry, Mélanie J. Chagnon, Rubén López‐Vales, Michel L. Tremblay, Samuel David

Bibliographic record

VenueGlia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAxonCorticospinal tractRegeneration (biology)BiologySpinal cordSpinal cord injuryProtein tyrosine phosphataseChondroitin sulfate proteoglycanGlial scarMyelinCrush injurySciatic nerveNeuriteCell biologyNeuroscienceSciatic nerve injuryAnatomyCentral nervous systemSignal transductionChondroitin sulfateMedicineIn vitroGlycosaminoglycanBiochemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Receptor protein tyrosine phosphatase sigma (RPTPsigma) plays a role in inhibiting axon growth during development. It has also been shown to slow axon regeneration after peripheral nerve injury and inhibit axon regeneration in the optic nerve. Here, we assessed the ability of the corticospinal tract (CST) axons to regenerate after spinal hemisection and contusion injury in RPTPsigma deficient (RPTPsigma(-/-)) mice. We show that damaged CST fibers in RPTPsigma(-/-) mice regenerate and appear to extend for long distances after a dorsal hemisection or contusion injury of the thoracic spinal cord. In contrast, no long distance axon regeneration of CST fibers is seen after similar lesions in wild-type mice. In vitro experiments indicate that cerebellar granule neurons from RPTPsigma(-/-) mice have reduced sensitivity to the inhibitory effects of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycan (CSPG) substrate, but not myelin, which may contribute to the growth of CST axons across the CSPG-rich glial scar. Our data suggest that RPTPsigma may function to prevent axonal growth after injury in the adult mammalian spinal cord and could be a target for promoting long distance regeneration after spinal cord injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations147
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGliaSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207