Olfactory ensheathing cells express smooth muscle α‐actin in vitro and in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One strategy for spinal cord repair after injury that has moved quickly from the research laboratory to the clinic is the implantation of olfactory ensheathing cells (OECs). These unique glial cells of the olfactory system have been associated with axonal remyelination and regeneration after grafting into spinalized animals. Despite these promising observations, there remains a lack of direct empirical evidence of the exact fate of OECs after intraspinal implantation, in large part because of a surprising paucity of defined biomarkers that unequivocally distinguish these cells from phenotypically similar Schwann cells. Here we provide direct neurochemical proof that OECs, both in vitro and in vivo, express smooth muscle alpha-actin. That OECs synthesize this contractile protein (and a variety of actin-binding proteins including caldesmon) provides compelling evidence that these cells are, in fact, quite different from Schwann cells. The identification of several smooth muscle-related proteins in OECs points to a new appreciation of the structural and functional features of this population of olfactory glia. These biomarkers can now be used to elucidate the fate of OECs after intraspinal implantation, in particular assessing whether smooth muscle alpha-actin-expressing OECs are capable of facilitating axon remyelination and regeneration.
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 | 0.001 |
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".