MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spinal Interneuron Axons Spontaneously Regenerate after Spinal Cord Injury in the Adult Feline

2009· article· en· W2034021702 on OpenAlexaff
Keith K. Fenrich, P. K. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAxon Guidance and Neuronal Signaling
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterneuronSpinal cord injurySpinal cordNeuroscienceCATSMedicineAnatomyBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well established that long, descending axons of the adult mammalian spinal cord do not regenerate after a spinal cord injury (SCI). These axons do not regenerate because they do not mount an adequate regenerative response and growth is inhibited at the injury site by growth cone collapsing molecules, such as chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs). However, whether axons of axotomized spinal interneurons regenerate through the inhibitory environment of an SCI site remains unknown. Here, we show that cut axons from adult mammalian spinal interneurons can regenerate through an SCI site and form new synaptic connections in vivo. Using morphological and immunohistochemical analyses, we found that after a midsagittal transection of the adult feline spinal cord, axons of propriospinal commissural interneurons can grow across the lesion despite a close proximity of their growth cones to CSPGs. Furthermore, using immunohistochemical and electrophysiological analyses, we found that the regenerated axons conduct action potentials and form functional synaptic connections with motoneurons, thus providing new circuits that cross the transected commissures. Our results show that interneurons of the adult mammalian spinal cord are capable of spontaneous regeneration after injury and suggest that elucidating the mechanisms that allow these axons to regenerate may lead to useful new therapeutic strategies for restoring function after injury to the adult CNS.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations90
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicAxon Guidance and Neuronal SignalingFrench-language works237,207