I<sub>H</sub>activity is increased in populations of slow versus fast motor axons of the rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much is known about the electrophysiological variation in motoneuron somata across different motor units. However, comparatively less is known about electrophysiological variation in motor axons and how this could impact function or electrodiagnosis in healthy or diseased states. We performed nerve excitability testing on two groups of motor axons in Sprague-Dawley rats that are known to differ significantly in their chronic daily activity patterns and in the relative proportion of motor unit types: one group innervating the soleus ("slow motor axons") and the other group innervating the tibialis anterior ("fast motor axons") muscles. We found that slow motor axons have significantly larger accommodation compared to fast motor axons upon application of a 100 ms hyperpolarizing conditioning stimulus that is 40% of axon threshold (Z = 3.24, p = 0.001) or 20% of axon threshold (Z = 2.67, p = 0.008). Slow motor axons had larger accommodation to hyperpolarizing currents in the current-threshold measurement (-80% Z = 3.07, p = 0.002; -90% Z = 2.98, p = 0.003). In addition, we found that slow motor axons have a significantly smaller rheobase than fast motor axons (Z = -1.99, p = 0.047) accompanied by a lower threshold in stimulus-response curves. The results provide evidence that slow motor axons have greater activity of the hyperpolarization-activated inwardly rectifying cation conductance (IH) than fast motor axons. It is possible that this difference between fast and slow axons is caused by an adaptation to their chronic differences in daily activity patterns, and that this adaptation might have a functional effect on the motor unit. Moreover, these findings indicate that slow and fast motor axons may react differently to pathological conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".