Inhibition of brain‐derived neurotrophic factor and glial cell line‐derived neurotrophic factor expression reduces dopaminergic sprouting in the injured striatum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After striatal injury, sprouting dopaminergic fibres grow towards and intimately surround wound macrophages which, together with microglia, express the dopaminergic neurotrophic factors glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) and brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). To evaluate the importance of these endogenously secreted neurotrophic factors in generating striatal peri-wound dopaminergic sprouting, the peri-wound expression of BDNF or GDNF was inhibited by intrastriatal infusion of antisense oligonucleotides for 2 weeks in mice. Knock-down of both BDNF and GDNF mRNA and protein levels in the wounded striatum were confirmed by in situ hybridization and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, respectively. Dopamine transporter immunohisto-chemistry revealed that inhibition of either BDNF or GDNF expression resulted in a marked decrease in the intensity of peri-wound sprouting. Quantification of this effect using [H3]-mazindol autoradiography confirmed that peri-wound sprouting was significantly reduced in mice receiving BDNF or GDNF antisense infusions whilst control infusions of buffered saline or sense oligonucleotides resulted in the pronounced peri-wound sprouting response normally associated with striatal injury. BDNF and GDNF thus appear to be important neurotrophic factors inducing dopaminergic sprouting after striatal 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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".