Comparative Therapeutic Effects of Minocycline Treatment and Bone Marrow Mononuclear Cell Transplantation following Striatal Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored the comparative effects of minocycline treatment and intrastriatal BMMC transplantation after experimental striatal stroke in adult rats. Male Wistar adult rats were divided as follows: saline‐treated (N= 5), minocycline‐treated (N= 5), and BMMC‐transplanted (N= 5) animals. Animals received intrastriatal microinjections of 80 pmol of endothelin‐1 (ET‐1). Behavioral tests were performed at 1, 3, and 7 days postischemia. Animals were treated with minocycline (50 mg/kg, i.p.) or intrastriatal transplants of 106 BMMCs at 24 h postischemia. Animals were perfused at 7 days after ischemic induction. Coronal sections were stained with cresyl violet for gross histopathological analysis and immunolabeled for the identification of neuronal bodies (NeuN), activated microglia/macrophages (ED1), and apoptotic cells (active caspase‐3). BMMC transplantation and minocycline reduced the number of ED1+ cells (p< 0.05, ANOVA‐Tukey), but BMMC afforded better results. Both treatments afforded comparable levels of neuronal preservation compared to control (p> 0.05). BMMC transplantation induced a higher decrease in the number of apoptotic cells compared to control and minocycline treatment. Both therapeutic approaches improved functional recovery in ischemic animals. The results suggest that BMMC transplantation is more effective in modulating microglial activation and reducing apoptotic cell death than minocycline, although both treatments are equally efficacious on improving neuronal preservation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".