Tau Gene Deletion Does Not Influence Axonal Regeneration and Retinal Neuron Survival in the Injured Mouse Visual System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we hypothesized that the microtubule-associated protein Tau may influence retinal neuron survival and axonal regeneration after optic nerve injury. To test this hypothesis, the density of retinal ganglion cells was evaluated by immunostaining retinal flat-mounts for RNA-binding protein with multiple splicing (RBPMS) two weeks after optic nerve micro-crush lesion in Tau-deprived (Tau knock-out (KO)) and wild-type (WT) mice. Axon growth was determined on longitudinal sections of optic nerves after anterograde tracing. Our results showed that the number of surviving retinal ganglion cells and growing axons did not significantly vary between WT and Tau KO animals. Moreover, sustained activation of the neuronal growth program with ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) resulted in a similar increase in surviving neurons and in growing axons in WT and Tau KO mice. Taken together, our data suggest that Tau does not influence axonal regeneration or neuronal survival.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".