Repeated touch and needle-prick stimulation in the neonatal period increases the baseline mechanical sensitivity and postinjury hypersensitivity of adult spinal sensory neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noxious stimulation at critical stages of development has long-term consequences on somatosensory processing in later life, but it is not known whether this developmental plasticity is restricted to nociceptive pathways. Here, we investigate the effect of repeated neonatal noxious or innocuous hind paw stimulation on adult spinal dorsal horn cutaneous mechanical sensitivity. Neonatal Sprague-Dawley rats of both sexes received 4 unilateral left hind paw needle pricks (NPs, n = 13) or 4 tactile (cotton swab touch) stimuli, per day (TC, n = 11) for the first 7 days of life. Control pups were left undisturbed (n = 17). When adult (6-8 weeks), lumbar wide-dynamic-range neuron activity in laminae III-V was recorded using in vivo extracellular single-unit electrophysiology. Spike activity evoked by cutaneous dynamic tactile (brush), pinch and punctate (von Frey hair) stimulation, and plantar receptive field areas were recorded, at baseline and 2 and 5 days after left plantar hind paw incision. Baseline brush receptive fields, von Frey hair, and pinch sensitivity were significantly enhanced in adult NP and TC animals compared with undisturbed controls, although effects were greatest in NP rats. After incision, injury sensitivity of adult wide-dynamic-range neurons to both noxious and dynamic tactile hypersensitivity was significantly greater in NP animals compared with TC and undisturbed controls. We conclude that both repeated touch and needle-prick stimulation in the neonatal period can alter adult spinal sensory neuron sensitivity to both innocuous and noxious mechanical stimulation. Thus, spinal sensory circuits underlying touch and pain processing are shaped by a range of early-life somatosensory experiences.
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".