Tyrosine hydroxylase‐immunoreactive interneurons in the olfactory bulb of the frogs <i>Rana pipiens</i> and <i>Xenopus laevis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied tyrosine hydroxylase (TH)-immunoreactive neurons and neuropil in the olfactory bulb of the leopard frog, Rana pipiens, and in the clawed frog, Xenopus laevis. In both frogs, TH processes in the main olfactory bulb showed a trilaminar organization, with a densely stained external glomerular layer (GL), a moderately stained middle mitral cell layer (MCL), and internally a weakly stained internal plexiform layer (IPL) and granule cell layer (GRL). TH-positive cells in the MCL and IPL could be divided into two types. Type 1 cells had one or two thick dendrites that arborized within glomeruli in the GL and often had a thin "axon-like" process that exited the cell on the internal surface, with a recurrent collateral that ascended into the GL. Type 2 cells had beaded dendrites arborizing in the MCL and no discernible axons. Both type 1 and type 2 cells were numerous in the MCL and IPL of Rana, whereas only type 2 cells were common in the MCL and IPL of Xenopus. In the GL, labeled cells were numerous in Xenopus but rare in Rana. Mitral cells were stained retrogradely by tracer injection into the lateral olfactory tract and by local injection into the bulb. In no case was double labeling for TH observed, suggesting that TH-positive cells in frog olfactory bulb are likely to be interneurons. Double labeling with an anti-gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antibody showed that the TH-positive cells formed a population separate from the GABA-containing interneurons.
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 | 0.000 | 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".