Olfactory Ensheathing Cells Do Not Exhibit Unique Migratory or Axonal Growth-Promoting Properties after Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) have been reported to migrate long distances and to bridge lesion sites, guiding axonal regeneration after spinal cord injury (SCI). To understand mechanisms of OEC migration and axonal guidance, we injected lamina propria OECs 1 mm rostral and caudal to C4 SCI sites. One month later, OECs formed an apparent migrating cell tract continuously extending from the injection site through the lesion, physically bridging the lesion. Confocal immunolabeling demonstrated that, whereas this cell tract displaced host astrocytes, descending or ascending long tract axons did not preferentially extend into the cell tract and OECs failed to support bridging of corticospinal axons. Notably, the "bridging" tract of OECs formed within 1 h of cell injection, raising the possibility that cells passively spread from the pressure injection site rather than actively migrating. Control injections of bone marrow stromal cells (MSCs) or fibroblasts 1 mm from the lesion site also rapidly dispersed into the lesion cavity. Cell tracts extending into the lesion site were not seen when cells were injected either at low volumes, into spinal cord gray matter, or 3 d before or 9 d after SCI. OECs proliferated in injection sites, cell tracts, and lesion sites, indicating that OECs can also accumulate through cell proliferation. Thus, OECs do not appear to exhibit significant migratory properties when grafted to the spinal cord, exhibit no detectable difference in promoting axon growth into a SCI site compared with MSCs or fibroblasts, and do not support bridging of corticospinal axons beyond a dorsal column lesion.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".