MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048144165 · doi:10.3727/096368911x612503

The Effect of Growth Factors and Soluble Nogo-66 Receptor Protein on Transplanted Neural Stem/Progenitor Survival and Axonal Regeneration after Complete Transection of Rat Spinal Cord

2012· article· en· W2048144165 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaodong Guo, Tasneem Zahir, Andrea J. Mothe, Molly S. Shoichet, Cindi M. Morshead, Yusuke Katayama, Charles H. Tator

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Transplantation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProgenitor cellRegeneration (biology)Cell biologyNeural stem cellSpinal cordStem cellGrowth factorBasic fibroblast growth factorBiologyNeuroscienceReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult central mammalian axons show minimal regeneration after spinal cord injury due to loss of oligodendrocytes, demyelination of surviving axons, absence of growth-promoting molecules, and inhibitors of axonal outgrowth. In the present study, we attempted to address these impediments to regeneration by using a combinatory strategy to enhance cell survival and regeneration after complete spinal cord transection (SCT) in adult rats. The strategy comprised: 1) adult rat brain-derived neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) preseeded on laminin-coated chitosan channels; 2) extramedullary chitosan channels to promote axonal regrowth and reduce the barrier caused by scarring; 3) local delivery of a novel rat soluble Nogo-66 receptor protein [NgR(310)ecto-Fc, referred to as NgR] to block the inhibitory effect of myelin-based inhibitors; and 4) local delivery of basic fibroblast growth factor, epidermal growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor to enhance survival and promote differentiation of transplanted cells. Compared with our previous studies where brain-derived NSPCs preseeded in extramedullary chitosan channels were implanted in the same SCT model but without growth factors and NgR, the present channel-growth factor combination produced greater numbers of surviving NSPCs after SCT. Also, the growth factors promoted preferential differentiation of NSPCs toward oligodendrocytes, while NgR significantly decreased astrocytic differentiation of NSPCs. NgR alone or in combination with NSPCs significantly enhanced the total number of myelinated fibers in the bridge and increased the area of the bridging tissue between the cord stumps. The combination of NgR, growth factors, and NSPCs had synergistic effect on bridge formation. However, only a small number of descending corticospinal tract axons grew into the central portions of the bridges as shown by anterograde tracing of the corticospinal tract with BDA. The majority of the regenerated axons in the channels originated from local host neurons adjacent to the tissue bridges. In conclusion, we showed that growth factors increased survival of transplanted NSPCs whereas NgR enhanced axonal regeneration, but the combination did not have additive effects on functional recovery or regeneration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell TransplantationSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207