MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162464745 · doi:10.1002/cne.21385

Olfactory ensheathing cells express smooth muscle α‐actin in vitro and in vivo

2007· article· en· W2162464745 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Jahed, James W. Rowland, Todd McDonald, J. Gordon Boyd, R. Doucette, Michael D. Kawaja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNerve injury and regeneration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactory ensheathing gliaBiologyRemyelinationRegeneration (biology)Cell biologyNeuroscienceAxonOlfactory systemAnatomyCentral nervous systemOlfactory bulbMyelin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicNerve injury and regenerationFrench-language works237,207