<i>Prx1</i><sup>+</sup> MPCs Accumulate in the Dura Mater of Wild‐Type and <i>p21</i><sup>−/−</sup> Mice Followed by a Specific Reduction in <i>p21</i><sup>−/−</sup> Dural MPCs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Epidural fat contains a population of mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs), and this study explores the behavior of these cells on the adjacent dura mater during growth and in response to injury in a p21 knockout mouse model. p21−/− mice are known to have increased cell proliferation and enhanced tissue regeneration post‐injury. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the process by which epidural fat MPCs maintain the dura mater can be accelerated in p21−/− mice. Using a Prx1 lineage tracing mouse model, the epidural fat MPCs are found to increase in the dura mater over time in both C57BL/6 (p21+/+) and p21−/− mice; however, by 3 weeks post‐tamoxifen induction, few MPCs are observed in p21−/− mice. These endogenous MPCs also localize to dural injuries in both mouse strains, with MPCs in p21−/− mice demonstrating increased proliferation. When epidural fat MPCs derived from p21−/− mice are transplanted into dural injuries in C57BL/6 mice, these MPCs are found in the injury site. It is demonstrated that epidural fat MPCs play a role in dural tissue maintenance and are able to directly contribute to dural injury repair. This suggests that these MPCs have the potential to treat injuries and/or pathologies in tissues surrounding the spinal cord.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".