Epidermal Growth Factor and Fibroblast Growth Factor 2 Cause Proliferation of Ependymal Precursor Cells in the Adult Rat Spinal Cord In Vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the mitogenic effect of continuous intrathecal infusion of epidermal growth factor (EGF) or fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) on ependymal precursor cells of the adult rat spinal cord in vivo. Either EGF, FGF2, EGF plus FGF2, or artificial cerebrospinal fluid (aCSF) was infused at a flow rate of 0.5 microl/h (15 ng/h of EGF or FGF2) for 3 or 14 days into the intrathecal space at T1 through a catheter attached to an osmotic minipump. To assess proliferation, the bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) labeling index (LI) in the ependyma at T1 was calculated at 3 or 14 days. At 3 days there was no statistical difference in LI between these groups, but at 14 days the LI was significantly higher in the EGF plus FGF2 group (27.2% = 16.0%) than in the aCSF group (5.4% +/- 4.7%; p < 0.05). With EGF alone or FGF2 alone, the LI increases were not significantly different from the aCSF group. With EGF plus FGF2 for 14 days, some BrdU-positive cells in the ependyma also expressed nestin. These results suggest that the intrathecal infusion of EGF plus FGF2 has a mitogenic effect on precursor cells in the ependyma of the adult rat spinal cord.
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 | 0.000 |
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".