Differential properties of dentate gyrus and CA1 neural precursors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present article we investigated the properties of CA1 and dentate gyrus cell precursors in adult rodents both in vivo and in vitro. Cell proliferation in situ was investigated by rating the number of cells incorporating BrdU after kainate-induced seizures. CA1 precursors displayed a greater proliferation capacity than dentate gyrus precursors. The majority of BrdU-labeled cells in CA1 expressed Nestin and Mash-1, two markers of neural precursors. BrdU-positive cells in the dentate gyrus expressed Nestin, but only a few expressed Mash-1. In animals pretreated with the antimitotic azacytidine, the capacity of kainate to enhance the proliferation was higher in CA1 than in the dentate gyrus. Differences in intrinsic progenitor cell activity could underlie these different expansion capacities. Thus, we compared the renewal- expansion and multipotency of dentate gyrus and CA1 precursors isolated in vitro. We found that the dissected CA1 region, including the periventricular zone, is enriched in neurosphere-forming cells (presumed stem cells), which respond to either EGF or FGF-2. Dentate gyrus contains fewer neurosphere-forming cells and none that respond to FGF-2 alone. Neurospheres generated from CA1 were multipotent and produced neurons, astrocytes, and oligodendrocytes, while dentate gyrus neurospheres mostly produced glial cells. The analysis of the effects of EGF on organotypic cultures of hippocampal slices depicted similar features: BrdU and Nestin immunoreactivities increased after EGF treatment in CA1 but not in the dentate gyrus. These results suggest that CA1 precursors are more stem-cell-like than granule cell precursors, which may represent a more restricted precursor cell.
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".