Peripheral Nerve Single-Cell Analysis Identifies Mesenchymal Ligands that Promote Axonal Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripheral nerves provide a supportive growth environment for developing and regenerating axons and are essential for maintenance and repair of many non-neural tissues. This capacity has largely been ascribed to paracrine factors secreted by nerve-resident Schwann cells. Here, we used single-cell transcriptional profiling to identify ligands made by different injured rodent nerve cell types and have combined this with cell-surface mass spectrometry to computationally model potential paracrine interactions with peripheral neurons. These analyses show that peripheral nerves make many ligands predicted to act on peripheral and CNS neurons, including known and previously uncharacterized ligands. While Schwann cells are an important ligand source within injured nerves, more than half of the predicted ligands are made by nerve-resident mesenchymal cells, including the endoneurial cells most closely associated with peripheral axons. At least three of these mesenchymal ligands, ANGPT1, CCL11, and VEGFC, promote growth when locally applied on sympathetic axons. These data therefore identify an unexpected paracrine role for nerve mesenchymal cells and suggest that multiple cell types contribute to creating a highly pro-growth environment for peripheral axons.
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".