Retrograde transport of neurotrophins: Fact and function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrograde signals generated by nerve growth factor (NGF) and other neurotrophins promote the survival of appropriately connected neurons during development, and failure to obtain sufficient retrograde signals may contribute to neuronal death occurring in many neurodegenerative diseases. The discovery over 25 years ago that NGF supplied to the axon terminals is retrogradely transported to the cell bodies suggested that NGF must reach the cell body to promote neuronal survival. Research during the intervening decades has produced a refinement of this hypothesis. The current hypothesis is that NGF bound to TrkA at the axon terminal is internalized into signaling endosomes, with NGF in their lumens bound to phosphorylated TrkA in their membranes, which are retrogradely transported to the cell bodies, where TrkA activates downstream signaling molecules that promote neuronal survival and regulate many aspects of neuronal gene expression. This model has been extrapolated to retrograde signaling by all neurotrophins. We consider the evidence for this model, focusing on results of experiments with neurons in compartmented cultures. Results to date indicate that while the transport of signaling endosomes containing NGF bound to TrkA may carry retrograde signals, retrograde survival signals can be carried by another mechanism that is activated by NGF at the axon terminal surface and travels to the cell body unaccompanied by the NGF that initiated it. It is hypothesized that multiple mechanisms of retrograde signaling exist and function under different circumstances. The newly discovered potential for redundancy in retrograde signaling mechanisms can complicate the interpretation of experimental results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".