Cholinergic and Nadph‐δ neurons in the pedunculopontine and laterodorsal tegmental nuclei of human and nonhuman primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brainstem pedunculopontine (PPN) and laterodorsal tegmental (LDTg) nuclei are involved in multifarious activities, including motor control. Yet, their exact cytoarchitectural boundaries are still uncertain. We therefore initiated a comparative study of the topographical and neurochemical organization of the PPN and LDTg in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis) and humans. The distribution and morphological characteristics of neurons expressing choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) and/or nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate diaphorase (Nadph-δ) were documented. The number and density of the labeled neurons were obtained by stringent stereological methods, whereas their topographical distribution was reported upon corresponding magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) planes. In both human and nonhuman primates, the PPN and LDTg are populated by three neurochemically distinct types of neurons (ChAT-/Nadph-δ+, ChAT+/Nadph-δ-, and ChAT+/Nadph-δ+), which are distributed according to a complex spatial interplay. Three-dimensional reconstructions reveal that ChAT+ neurons in the PPN and LDTg form a continuum with some overlaps with pigmented neurons of the locus coeruleus, dorsally, and of the substantia nigra (SN) complex, ventrally. The ChAT+ neurons in the PPN and LDTg are -two to three times more numerous in humans than in monkeys but their density is -three to five times higher in monkeys than in humans. Neurons expressing both ChAT and Nadph-δ have a larger cell body and a longer primary dendritic arbor than singly labeled neurons. Stereological quantification reveals that 25.6% of ChAT+ neurons in the monkey PPN are devoid of Nadph-δ staining, a finding that questions the reliability of Nadph-δ as a marker for cholinergic neurons in primate brainstem.
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) | 0.001 | 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".