Neuronal regeneration in the goldfish telencephalon following 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) insult
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The constitutive regenerative ability of the goldfish central nervous system makes them an excellent model organism to study neurogenesis. Intraperitoneal injection of neurotoxin 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) was used to deplete tyrosine hydroxylase-positive neurons in the adult goldfish telencephalon. We report novel information on the ability of the goldfish to regenerate (∼3–4 d post-MPTP insult) damaged neurons in telencephalic tissue by observing the rapid incorporation of bromodeoxyuridine into newly generated cells, which precedes the recovery of motor function in MPTP-treated animals. Specifically, the telencephalon area telencephali pars dorsalis in female goldfish, which is associated with fish motor activity, regenerates following MPTP toxicity. The remarkable ability of goldfish to rapidly regenerate damaged neurons provides insight into their use as model organisms to study neuroregenerative abilities within a few days following injury. We provide evidence that goldfish are able to regenerate neurons in ∼3–4 d to both replenish and recover baseline catecholaminergic levels, thus enabling the fish to reestablish basic activities such as swimming. The study of neuron regeneration in the damaged goldfish brain will increase our understanding of vertebrate neurogenesis and regeneration processes following central nervous system injury.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".