MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126454274 · doi:10.1002/jnr.21194

Connexin 43 gap junction proteins are up‐regulated in remyelinating spinal cord

2007· article· en· W2126454274 on OpenAlexaff
Wendi A. Roscoe, Elizabeth K. Messersmith, Anke Meyer‐Franke, Brian T. Wipke, Stephen J. Karlik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnexinGap junctionSpinal cordNeuroscienceBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alterations in the expression of gap junction proteins have previously been observed in several diseases affecting the central nervous system; however, the status of connexin 43 (Cx43) has not yet been reported in spinal cord remyelination. We studied Cx43 expression in demyelination and remyelination by using a chronic guinea pig model of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE). Hartley guinea pigs were immunized with homogenized whole CNS and complete Freund's adjuvant. Animals became chronically ill by day 40 postimmunization, and animals with paralysis were entered into the study. Animals were treated on days 40-60 postimmunization with either saline or drugs that promote remyelination: an adenosine amine congener (100 mug/kg), an anti-alpha4-integrin blocker (CT301; ELN 69299; 30 mg/kg), or a combination of both drugs. Remyelination was induced in all drug-treated groups. Cx43 expression was virtually absent in demyelinated lesions of saline-treated controls compared with healthy tissue and normal appearing white matter (P < 0.001), whereas Cx43 was considerably increased (300-500%) in remyelinating lesions of all treatment groups (P < 0.001), most notably in CT301-treated animals. These changes in Cx43 expression indicate that Cx43 may beimportant for recovery from neuroinflammation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience ResearchSame topicConnexins and lens biologyFrench-language works237,207