Cholinergic mechanisms in spinal locomotion—potential target for rehabilitation approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous experiments implicate cholinergic brainstem and spinal systems in the control of locomotion. Our results demonstrate that the endogenous cholinergic propriospinal system, acting via M2 and M3 muscarinic receptors, is capable of consistently producing well-coordinated locomotor activity in the in vitro neonatal preparation, placing it in a position to contribute to normal locomotion and to provide a basis for recovery of locomotor capability in the absence of descending pathways. Tests of these suggestions, however, reveal that the spinal cholinergic system plays little if any role in the induction of locomotion, because MLR-evoked locomotion in decerebrate cats is not prevented by cholinergic antagonists. Furthermore, it is not required for the development of stepping movements after spinal cord injury, because cholinergic agonists do not facilitate the appearance of locomotion after spinal cord injury, unlike the dramatic locomotion-promoting effects of clonidine, a noradrenergic α-2 agonist. Furthermore, cholinergic antagonists actually improve locomotor activity after spinal cord injury, suggesting that plastic changes in the spinal cholinergic system interfere with locomotion rather than facilitating it. Changes that have been observed in the cholinergic innervation of motoneurons after spinal cord injury do not decrease motoneuron excitability, as expected. Instead, the development of a "hyper-cholinergic" state after spinal cord injury appears to enhance motoneuron output and suppress locomotion. A cholinergic suppression of afferent input from the limb after spinal cord injury is also evident from our data, and this may contribute to the ability of cholinergic antagonists to improve locomotion. Not only is a role for the spinal cholinergic system in suppressing locomotion after SCI suggested by our results, but an obligatory contribution of a brainstem cholinergic relay to reticulospinal locomotor command systems is not confirmed by our experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".