P.145 Uncovering differences in oligodendrogenesis between human and rodent spinal cord stem cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord regeneration in pre-clinical rodent studies is feasible by promoting oligodendrocyte regrowth, which is necessary for axon myelination. It is uncertain whether human neural stem/progenitor cells (NSPCs) are capable of differentiation into oligodendrocytes, similar to rat. In this study, we compare the functional and transcriptional features of primary spinal cord NSPCs from adult humans and rats. Methods: Oligodendrogenesis between human & rat NSPCs from adult donors and rats was cultured using the Neurosphere assay. NSPCs were exposed to 1% FBS to trigger differentiation & PDGF-AA to promote oligodendrocyte formation. Immunocytochemistry & RNA sequencing compared transcriptomes and analyzing differentially expressed genes. Results: Human NSPCs showed a reduced potential for oligodendrocyte generation compared to rat NSPCs (0.013±0.01% and 0.029±0.01% O4+ after one and two weeks in humans; 4.9±0.4% and 6.3±0.6% O4+ after one and two weeks in rats). PDGF-AA treatment at 40 ng/µL for one week was able to effectively promote oligodendrocyte differentiation in rat NSPCs, but had a minimal effect on human NSPCs (8.5±1.4 fold increase in O4+). OLIG1/2, SOX10, and CNP were enriched in rat NSPCs. Conclusions: We compared oligodendrogenesis potential between human and rat NSPCs and found significantly lower capacity in human NSPCs, possibly hindering successful myelinating techniques.
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) | 0.004 | 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".