Dorsolateral Funiculus Lesioning of the Mouse Cervical Spinal Cord at C4 but Not at C6 Results in Sustained Forelimb Motor Deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although upper extremity functional recovery is a high priority for spinal cord injured patients with cervical injuries, few injury models have been developed in mice with sustained deficits in forelimb motor function. Here, we characterize a dorsolateral funiculus (DLF) crush model in mice, which ablates the rubrospinal tract (RST) unilaterally and thus allows correlation of motor recovery to axonal regeneration in the assessment of molecular regeneration targets. We conducted unilateral DLF crush injuries at cervical levels C4 and C6 and assessed motor recovery in a battery of tests: the rearing test of forelimb asymmetry, the grooming test, staircase pellet reaching, a horizontal ladder task, and CatWalk gait analysis. All tasks revealed lesion effects on forepaw function when DLF crush was instigated at level C4, but deficits were generally only transient in mice with DLF crush performed at level C6. Anterograde tracing of the RST with biotinylated dextran amine revealed the tract's complete ablation. The characterization of a C4 DLF model in mice provides an important tool for assessing molecular regeneration targets to promote functional recovery after spinal cord injury.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".