MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165292716 · doi:10.1002/cne.20654

Nerve growth factor sensitivity is broadly distributed among myenteric neurons of the rat colon

2005· article· en· W2165292716 on OpenAlexaff
Agueda Lin, Sandra Lourenssen, Roger Stanzel, Michael G. Blennerhassett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNerve growth factorEnteric nervous systemTropomyosin receptor kinase ABiologyCholine acetyltransferaseLow-affinity nerve growth factor receptorMyenteric plexusReceptorNeuroscienceInternal medicineEndocrinologyCell biologyCentral nervous systemImmunologyImmunohistochemistryBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nerve growth factor (NGF) acts on the two-receptor system of trkA and p75 to mediate neuroprotection and influence phenotype and function in the peripheral nervous system, but the effects of NGF on the enteric nervous system (ENS) are virtually unknown. To establish a basis for enteric responsiveness to NGF, we studied the presence and distribution of NGF-sensitive receptors in the myenteric neurons of the normal rat colon and examined their activation via trkA phosphorylation. Fluorescent immunocytochemistry on wholemounts showed that the two NGF receptors were abundantly present in the ENS, with 71% of all neurons positive for trkA and 78% for p75. More thanr 60% of the myenteric neurons expressed both receptors, and exogenous application of NGF resulted in trkA phosphorylation, evidence for high NGF sensitivity within the ENS. trkA was co-expressed with choline acetyltransferase (61% of trkA-positive neurons), neuronal nitric oxide synthase (22%), or calbindin (10%), suggesting widespread potential for NGF action. We conclude that functional receptors for NGF are widely distributed among the diverse enteric phenotypes and argue for a novel NGF-mediated regulatory system within the ENS.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations26
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207