Electrical Stimulation of Low-Threshold Proprioceptive Fibers in the Adult Rat Increases Density of Glutamatergic and Cholinergic Terminals on Ankle Extensor α-Motoneurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of stimulation of low-threshold proprioceptive afferents in the tibial nerve on two types of excitatory inputs to α-motoneurons were tested. The first input is formed by glutamatergic Ia sensory afferents contacting monosynaptically α-motoneurons. The second one is the cholinergic input originating from V0c-interneurons, located in lamina X of the spinal cord, modulating activity of α-motoneurons via C-terminals. Our aim was to clarify whether enhancement of signaling to ankle extensor α-motoneurons, via direct electrical stimulation addressed predominantly to low-threshold proprioceptive fibers in the tibial nerve of awake rats, will affect Ia glutamatergic and cholinergic innervation of α-motoneurons of lateral gastrocnemius (LG). LG motoneurons were identified with True Blue tracer injected intramuscularly. Tibial nerve was stimulated for 7 days with continuous bursts of three pulses applied in four 20 min sessions daily. The Hoffmann reflex and motor responses recorded from the soleus muscle, LG synergist, allowed controlling stimulation. Ia terminals and C-terminals abutting on LG-labeled α-motoneurons were detected by immunofluorescence (IF) using input-specific anti- VGLUT1 and anti-VAChT antibodies, respectively. Quantitative analysis of confocal images revealed that the number of VGLUT1 IF and VAChT IF terminals contacting the soma of LG α-motoneurons increased after stimulation by 35% and by 26%, respectively, comparing to the sham-stimulated side. The aggregate volume of VGLUT1 IF and VAChT IF terminals increased by 35% and by 30%, respectively. Labeling intensity of boutons was also increased, suggesting an increase of signaling to LG α-motoneurons after stimulation. To conclude, one week of continuous burst stimulation of proprioceptive input to LG α-motoneurons is effective in enrichment of their direct glutamatergic but also indirect cholinergic inputs. The effectiveness of such and longer stimulation in models of injury is a prerequisite to propose it as a therapeutic method to improve inputs to selected group of α-motoneurons after damage.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".