MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309679314 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111705

Myostatin is a negative regulator of adult neurogenesis after spinal cord injury in zebrafish

2022· article· en· W4309679314 on OpenAlexaff
Vishnu Muraleedharan Saraswathy, Lili Zhou, Anthony R. McAdow, Brooke Burris, Deepika Dogra, Sven Reischauer, Mayssa H. Mokalled

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Natural SciencesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Washington
KeywordsNeurogenesisZebrafishBiologyCell biologySpinal cord injuryAxonMyostatinRegeneration (biology)Spinal cordNeuroscienceProgenitor cellProgenitorNeural stem cellFibroblast growth factorStem cellAnatomyGeneticsGeneSkeletal muscle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrinsic and extrinsic inhibition of neuronal regeneration obstruct spinal cord (SC) repair in mammals. In contrast, adult zebrafish achieve functional recovery after complete SC transection. While studies of innate SC regeneration have focused on axon regrowth as a primary repair mechanism, how local adult neurogenesis affects functional recovery is unknown. Here, we uncover dynamic expression of zebrafish myostatin b (mstnb) in a niche of dorsal SC progenitors after injury. mstnb mutants show impaired functional recovery, normal glial and axonal bridging across the lesion, and an increase in the profiles of newborn neurons. Molecularly, neuron differentiation genes are upregulated, while the neural stem cell maintenance gene fgf1b is downregulated in mstnb mutants. Finally, we show that human fibroblast growth factor 1 (FGF1) treatment rescues the molecular and cellular phenotypes of mstnb mutants. These studies uncover unanticipated neurogenic functions for mstnb and establish the importance of local adult neurogenesis for innate SC repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207