MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of the NGF Maturation and Degradation Pathway on the Cortical Cholinergic System Phenotype

2012· article· en· W2080487891 on OpenAlexafffund
S.T.M. Allard, Wanda León, Prateep Pakavathkumar, Martín A. Bruno, Alfredo Ribeiro‐da‐Silva, A. Claudio Cuello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMerck CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsNerve growth factorCholinergicBasal forebrainCholinergic neuronNeurotrophinNeuroscienceCholinergic FibersCognitive declineNucleus basalisBiologyNeurotrophic factorsInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineDementiaReceptorDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cortical cholinergic atrophy plays a significant role in the cognitive loss seen with aging and in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the mechanisms leading to it remain unresolved. Nerve growth factor (NGF) is the neurotrophin responsible for the phenotypic maintenance of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons in the mature and fully differentiated CNS. In consequence, its implication in cholinergic atrophy has been suspected; however, no mechanistic explanation has been provided. We have previously shown that the precursor of NGF (proNGF) is cleaved extracellularly by plasmin to form mature NGF (mNGF) and that mNGF is degraded by matrix metalloproteinase 9. Using cognitive-behavioral tests, Western blotting, and confocal and electron microscopy, this study demonstrates that a pharmacologically induced chronic failure in extracellular NGF maturation leads to a reduction in mNGF levels, proNGF accumulation, cholinergic degeneration, and cognitive impairment in rats. It also shows that inhibiting NGF degradation increases endogenous levels of the mature neurotrophin and increases the density of cortical cholinergic boutons. Together, the data point to a mechanism explaining cholinergic loss in neurodegenerative conditions such as AD and provide a potential therapeutic target for the protection or restoration of this CNS transmitter system in aging and AD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations102
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207