Regenerating crayfish motor axons assimilate glial cells and sprout in cultured explants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phasic and tonic motor nerves originating from crayfish abdominal ganglia, in 2-3-day-old cultured explants, display at their transected distal ends growth zones from which axonal sprouts arise. The subcellular morphology of this regenerative response was examined with thin serial-section electron microscopy and reveals two major remodeling features. First, the external sprouts that exit the nerve are a very small part of a much more massive sprouting response by individual axons comprising several orders of internal sprouts confined to the nerve. Both internal and external sprouts have a simple construction: a cytoskeleton of microtubules and populations of mitochondria, clear synaptic vesicles, membranous sacs, and extrasynaptic active zone dense bars, features reminiscent of motor nerve terminals. Close intermingling of the sprouts of several axons give rise to a neuropil-like arbor within the nerve. Thus, extensive sprouting is an intrinsic response of crayfish motor axons to transection. Second, an equally dramatic remodeling feature is the appearance of nuclei, which resemble those of adjacent glial cells, within the motor axons. These nuclei often appear where the adjoining membranes of the axon and glial cell are disrupted and where free-standing lengths of the double membrane are present. These images signify a breakdown of the dividing membranes and assimilation of the glial cell by the axon, the nucleus being the most visible sign of such assimilation. Thus, crayfish motor axons respond to transection by assimilating glial cells that may provide regulatory and trophic support for the sprouting response.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".