Sensory‐specific modulation of adult neurogenesis in sensory structures is associated with the type of stem cell present in the neurogenic niche of the zebrafish brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teleost fishes retain populations of adult stem/progenitor cells within multiple primary sensory processing structures of the mature brain. Though it has commonly been thought that their ability to give rise to adult-born neurons is mainly associated with continuous growth throughout life, whether a relationship exists between the processing function of these structures and the addition of new neurons remains unexplored. We investigated the ultrastructural organisation and modality-specific neurogenic plasticity of niches located in chemosensory (olfactory bulb, vagal lobe) and visual processing (periventricular grey zone, torus longitudinalis) structures of the adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) brain. Transmission electron microscopy showed that the cytoarchitecture of sensory niches includes many of the same cellular morphologies described in forebrain niches. We demonstrate that cells with a radial-glial phenotype are present in chemosensory niches, while the niche of the caudal tectum contains putative neuroepithelial-like cells instead. This was supported by immunohistochemical evidence showing an absence of glial markers, including glial fibrillary acidic protein, glutamine synthetase, and S100β in the tectum. By exposing animals to sensory assays we further illustrate that stem/progenitor cells and their neuronal progeny within sensory structures respond to modality-specific stimulation at distinct stages in the process of adult neurogenesis - chemosensory niches at the level of neuronal survival and visual niches in the size of the stem/progenitor population. Our data suggest that the adult brain has the capacity for sensory-specific modulation of adult neurogenesis and that this property may be associated with the type of stem cell present in the niche.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".