Axons with highly branched terminal regions successfully regenerate across spinal midline transections in the adult cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recently reported that some, but not all, axotomized propriospinal commissural interneurons (PCI) of the adult mammal can regenerate through spinal midsagittal transection injury sites (Fenrich and Rose [2009] J Neurosci 29:12145-12158). In this model, regenerating axons grow through a lesion site surrounded by a dense deposition of chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPG), which are typically inhibitory to regenerating axons. However, the mechanisms that lead some regenerating axons to grow through spinal cord injury (SCI) sites while others remain trapped in the CSPG zones or retract to their soma remain unknown. As a first step toward elucidating these mechanisms, here we show that the ability of PCI axons to regenerate across a SCI site depends on the branching patterns of their distal terminals. Using 3D reconstruction techniques through multiple serial sections and immunohistochemical analyses, we found that at 7 days postinjury a majority of PCI axons terminated in CSPG zones ipsilateral of the spinal midline. Conversely, at 9 days postinjury some PCI axons had regenerated across the midline, but others terminated outside the CSPG zones near their soma. Furthermore, we show that the most successful regenerators were those with the most extensive branching patterns, whereas those that terminated outside the CSPG zones had terminal regions indistinguishable from dystrophic terminals. Our results demonstrate that the morphological characteristics of regenerating axons play an important role in their ability to regenerate across SCI sites, and that the branching patterns of some regenerating axons are more extensive and have a far greater complexity than previously reported.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".