Tail pinching-induced hindlimb movements are suppressed by clonidine in spinal cord injured mice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments in completely spinal cord transected (Tx) cats have provided compelling evidence that clonidine combined with tail stimulation can promote locomotor function recovery. However, clonidine has generally failed to induce locomotor activity in other comparable animal models suggesting the existence of species- or condition-specific effects. This study aimed at investigating the effects of clonidine administered (0.25 or 5.0 mg/kg, i.p.) in mice during tail pinching in early (6-7 days post-Tx) or late (41-42 days post-Tx) paraplegic animals (Th9/10 level). Comparisons were made with the effects induced by 8-OH-DPAT (1.0 mg/kg, i.p.), a 5-HT1A/7 receptor agonist known to display prolocomotor effects. Clonidine with or without tail pinching failed to induce hind limb movements and even suppressed the frequency of spontaneously occurring nonlocomotor (NLM) and locomotor-like movements (LM) whereas tail pinching alone (prior to clonidine administration) increased the frequency of spontaneous movements specifically in late chronic animals. In turn, 8-OH-DPAT clearly induced hind limb movements that remained relatively unchanged during tail pinching. Altogether, the results suggest that the prolocomotor effects of clonidine reported elsewhere must depend upon stimuli or factors that remain to be identified.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".