A Novel Method for Simultaneous Anterograde and Retrograde Labeling of Spinal Cord Motor Tracts in the Same Animal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examination of repaired spinal cord tracts has usually required separate groups of animals for anterograde and retrograde tracing owing to the incompatibility of techniques such as tissue fixation. However, anterograde and retrograde labeling of different animals subjected to the same repair may not allow accurate examination of that repair strategy because widely variable results can occur in animals subjected to the same strategy. We have developed a reliable method of labeling spinal cord motor tracts bidirectionally in the same animal using DiI, a lipophilic dye, to anterogradely label the corticospinal tract and Fluoro-Gold (FG) to retrogradely label cortical and brainstem neurons of several spinal cord motor tracts in normal and injured adult rats. Other tracer combinations (lipophilic dyes or fluorescent dextrans) were also investigated but were less effective. We also developed methods to minimize autofluorescence with the DiI/FG technique, and found that the DiI/FG technique is compatible with decalcification and immunohistochemistry for several markers relevant for studies of spinal cord regeneration. Thus, the use of anterograde DiI and retrograde FG is a novel technique for bidirectional labeling of the motor tracts of the adult spinal cord with fluorescent tracers and should be useful for demonstrating neurite regeneration in studies of spinal cord repair.(J Histochem Cytochem 49:1111-1122, 2001)
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".