Absence of VEGFR‐1/Flt‐1 signaling pathway in mice results in insensitivity to discogenic low back pain in an established disc injury mouse model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although degenerative disc disease (DDD) and related low back pain (LBP) are growing public health problems, the underlying disease mechanisms remain unclear. An increase in the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels in DDD has been reported. This study aimed to examine the role of VEGF receptors (VEGFRs) in DDD, using a mouse model of DDD. Progressive DDD was induced by anterior stabbing of lumbar intervertebral discs in wild type (WT) and VEGFR‐1 tyrosine‐kinase deficient mice ( vegfr‐1 TK−/ − ). Pain assessments were performed weekly for 12 weeks. Histological and immunohistochemical assessments were made for discs, dorsal root ganglions, and spinal cord. Both vegfr‐1 TK − / − and WT mice presented with similar pathological changes in discs with an increased expression of inflammatory cytokines and matrix‐degrading enzymes. Despite the similar pathological patterns, vegfr‐1 TK − / − mice showed insensitivity to pain compared with WT mice. This insensitivity to discogenic pain was related to lower levels of pain factors in the discs and peripheral sensory neurons and lower spinal glial activation in the vegfr‐1 TK − / − mice than in the WT mice. Exogenous stimulation of bovine disc cells with VEGF increased inflammatory and cartilage degrading enzyme. Silencing vegfr‐1 by small‐interfering‐RNA decreased VEGF‐induced expression of pain markers, while silencing vegfr‐2 decreased VEGF‐induced expression of inflammatory and metabolic markers without changing pain markers. This suggests the involvement of VEGFR‐1 signaling specifically in pain transmission. Collectively, our results indicate that the VEGF signaling is involved in DDD. Particularly, VEGFR‐1 is critical for discogenic LBP transmission independent of the degree of disc pathology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".