Red nucleus projections to distinct motor neuron pools in the rat spinal cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being one of the more extensively investigated descending pathways of the rat spinal cord, the termination pattern and postsynaptic targets of the rubrospinal tract (RST) still present some unresolved issues. In addition to locomotor functions, the RST is implicated in the control of limb movements such as reaching and grasping. Although a strong RST projection onto interneurons of intermediate Rexed's laminae V and VI have been described through the entire length of the rat spinal cord, the existence of direct rubro-motoneuronal connections have not been demonstrated. In the present study, anterograde tracing of the rat RST with biotinylated dextran amine (BDA) was combined with injections of cholera toxin beta-subunit (CTbeta) into selected groups of forelimb muscles to analyze in detail the rubral projections to the forelimb areas of the cervical spinal cord. The double-staining procedure suggested a direct projection from the RST to specific populations of motoneurons. Three populations of forelimb muscles were distinguished, i.e., paw, "distal" muscles; forearm, "intermediate" muscles; and upper arm, "proximal" muscles. A somatotopic distribution of the corresponding motor neuron pools was present in the spinal cord segments C4-Th1. Rubrospinal axons were seen in close apposition to the distal and intermediate muscle motoneurons, but were consistently absent in the most ventrally situated motor column projecting to proximal muscles. Microstimulation of the red nucleus resulted in electromyographic responses with shorter latency in the distal forelimb muscles than in proximal muscles. These experiments support a specific, preferential role of the RST in distal forelimb muscle control.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".