MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sympathosensory sprouting in aged mice that over express nerve growth factor

2013· article· en· W2341690933 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura J. Smithson, Michael D. Kawaja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNerve growth factorTyrosine hydroxylaseTrigeminal ganglionSensory systemSproutingGenetically modified mouseGlial fibrillary acidic proteinEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyNeuroscienceMedicinePathologyTransgeneImmunohistochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigated the effects of age on post‐ganglionic sympathetic plexuses formation in trigeminal ganglia of transgenic mice that have elevated levels of nerve growth factor (NGF) in cells expressing the glial fibrillary acidic protein promoter (GFAPpr). Our group has previously shown the presence of tyrosine hydroxylase (TH)‐immunopositive plexuses around a subset of sensory somata of 2–3 month old GFAPpr‐NGF mice. This sympathosensory sprouting has been linked to the onset of neuropathic pain. In this current study, we demonstrated morphological changes of TH‐immunopositive plexuses in ganglia of aged (i.e., 11–14 month and 16–18 month old) GFAPpr‐NGF mice. Double immunolabeling revealed an association between reactive satellite glial cells (and some reactive macrophages) and TH‐immunopositive plexuses in aged mice, compared to younger transgenic mice. In addition, TH‐immunopositive plexuses in aged mice were associated with injured sensory neurons. Our results are the first to report changes in the morphology of sympathetic plexuses in sensory ganglia of aged mice. These results suggest that the presence of sympathetic plexuses around sensory somata may be slowly damaging the associated sensory neurons. That is, sympathosensory sprouting in aged mice likely compromises the function of sensory neurons, which may have profound implications for neuropathic pain. This work was supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; MDK) and by a Banting and Best Studentship from CIHR (LJS).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPain Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→