Effects of Sciatic Nerve Axotomy on Excitatory Synaptic Transmission in Rat Substantia Gelatinosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injury or section of a peripheral nerve can promote chronic neuropathic pain. This is initiated by the appearance and persistence of ectopic spontaneous activity in primary afferent neurons that promotes a secondary, enduring increase in excitability of sensory circuits in the spinal dorsal horn ("central sensitization"). We have previously shown that 10-20 days of chronic constriction injury (CCI) of rat sciatic nerve produce a characteristic "electrophysiological signature" or pattern of changes in synaptic excitation of five different electrophysiologically defined neuronal phenotypes in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn. Although axotomy and CCI send different signals to the dorsal horn, we now find, using whole cell recording, that the "electrophysiological signature" produced 12-22 days after sciatic axotomy is quite similar to that seen with CCI. Axotomy thus has little effect on resting membrane potential, rheobase, current-voltage characteristics, or excitability of most neuron types; however, it does decrease excitatory synaptic drive to tonic firing neurons, while increasing that to delay firing neurons. Since many tonic neurons are GABAergic, whereas delay neurons do not contain gamma-aminobutyric acid, axotomy may reduce synaptic excitation of inhibitory neurons while increasing that of excitatory neurons. Further analysis of spontaneous and miniature (tetrodotoxin-resistant) excitatory postsynaptic currents is consistent with the possibility that decreased excitation of tonic neurons reflects loss of presynaptic contacts. By contrast, increased excitation of "delay" neurons may reflect increased frequency of discharge of presynaptic action potentials. This would explain how synaptic excitation of tonic cells decreases despite the fact that axotomy increases spontaneous activity in primary afferent neurons.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".