Interaction Between Developing Spinal Locomotor Networks in the Neonatal Mouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At birth, thoracosacral spinal cord networks in mouse can produce a coordinated locomotor-like pattern. In contrast, less is known about the cervicothoracic networks that generate forelimb locomotion. Here we show that cervical networks can produce coordinated rhythmic patterns in the brain stem-spinal cord preparation of the mouse. Segmentally the C5 and C8 neurograms were each found to be alternating left-right, and the ipsilateral C5 and C8 neurograms also alternated. Collectively these patterns were suggestive of locomotor-like activity. This pattern was not dependent on the presence of thoracosacral segments because they could be evoked following a complete transection of the spinal cord at T5. We next demonstrated that activation of thoracosacral networks either pharmacologically or by stimulation of sacrocaudal afferents could produce rhythmic activity within the C5 and C8 neurograms. On the other hand, pharmacological activation of cervical networks did not evoke alternating cervical rhythmic activity either in isolated cervicothoracic or -sacral preparations. Under these conditions, we found that activation of cervicothoracic networks could alter the timing of thoracosacral locomotor-like patterns. When thoracosacral networks were not activated pharmacologically but received rhythmic drive from cervicothoracic networks, a pattern of slow bursts with superimposed fast synchronous oscillations became the dominant lumbar neurogram pattern. Our data suggest that in neonatal mice the cervical CPG is capable of producing coordinated rhythmic patterns in the absence of input from lumbar segments, but caudorostral drive contributes to cervical patterns and rhythm stability.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".