Undesired effects of a combinatorial treatment for spinal cord injury – transplantation of olfactory ensheathing cells and BDNF infusion to the red nucleus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transplantations of olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs) have been reported to promote axonal regeneration and functional recovery after spinal cord injury, but have demonstrated limited growth promotion of rat rubrospinal axons after a cervical dorsolateral funiculus crush. Rubrospinal neurons undergo massive atrophy after cervical axotomy and show only transient expression of regeneration-associated genes. Cell body treatment with brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) prevents this atrophy, stimulates regeneration-associated gene expression and promotes regeneration of rubrospinal axons into peripheral nerve transplants. Here, we hypothesized that the failure of rubrospinal axons to regenerate through a bridge of OEC transplants was due to this weak intrinsic cell body response. Hence, we combined BDNF treatment of rubrospinal neurons with transplantation of highly enriched OECs derived from the nasal mucosa and assessed axonal regeneration as well as behavioral changes after a cervical dorsolateral funiculus crush. Each treatment alone as well as their combination prevented the dieback of the rubrospinal axons, but none of them promoted rubrospinal regeneration beyond the lesion/transplantation site. Motor performance in a food-pellet reaching test and forelimb usage during vertical exploration (cylinder test) were more impaired after combining transplantation of OECs with BDNF treatment. This impaired motor performance correlated with lowered sensory thresholds in animals receiving the combinatorial therapy - which were not seen with each treatment alone. Only this combinatorial treatment group showed enhanced sprouting of calcitonin gene-related peptide-positive axons rostral to the lesion site. Hence, some combinatorial treatments, such as OECs with BDNF, may have undesired effects in the injured spinal cord.
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".