MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ependymal Cells are a Heterogeneous Population in the Spinal Cord of the Leopard Gecko

2016· article· en· W4389024626 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily Gilbert, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSilk-based biomaterials and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEpendymal CellBiologySpinal cordEpendymaSOX2NeuNPopulationAstrocyteAnatomyNeuroscienceCell biologyPathologyCentral nervous systemMedicineImmunologyImmunohistochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The leopard gecko ( Eublepharis macularius ) is an emerging model for the study of spinal cord regeneration. As for many lizards, leopard geckos are able to self‐detach their tails (to escape predation) and then spontaneously regenerate a replacement. The regenerate tail is characterized by a centrally positioned spinal cord with a relatively simple morphology: a layer of ependymal cells surrounded by nerve tracts. We hypothesize that ependymal cells in the spinal cord are a heterogenous population. Prior to injury, virtually all ependymal cells of the original (uninjured) spinal cord express the neural stem/progenitor cell (NSPC) marker Sox2, and a subset of these cells also express the astrocyte marker glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP). Neurons of the grey matter, but not ependymal cells, co‐express the neuronal markers HuCD and NeuN. During regeneration, ependymal cells remain Sox2 + and begin to express additional NSPC markers including Musashi‐1, βIII‐Tubulin and Sox9. Interestingly, a subset of ependymal cells in both the original tail stump and the newly formed regenerate spinal cord begin expressing HuCD, a protein otherwise characteristic of neuronal differentiation. These cells are negative for NeuN (a marker of neuronal nuclei) and are positionally restricted to locations bordering the central canal. A second subset of ependymal cells within the regenerating spinal cord begin to express GFAP and Vimentin but not HuCD. Our results suggest that there are at least three distinct populations of ependymal cells present during regeneration. The majority of ependymal cells are HuCD/GFAP − and display a dynamic NSPC profile following injury (Musashi‐1 + / βIII‐Tubulin + / Sox9 + ). Two other populations are less widespread. HuCD + /GFAP − /NeuN − cells may represent a population of neuronal‐like central canal contacting cells, while HuCD − /GFAP + /Vimentin + cells appear to be ependymo‐radial glia. This complex assemblage of cells may explain the remarkable regenerative abilities of the spinal cord in this species. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Discovery Grant (400358)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicSilk-based biomaterials and applicationsFrench-language works237,207