Appropriate dosage, timing, and site of intramuscular injections of brain‐derived neurotrophic factor (<scp>BDNF)</scp> promote motor recovery after facial nerve injury in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Daily intramuscular injections of fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2) but not of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) significantly improve whisking behavior and mono-innervation of the rat levator labii superioris (LLS) muscle 56 days after buccal nerve transection and suture (buccal-buccal anastomosis, BBA). We explored the dose-response of BDNF, FGF2, and insulin growth factor 2 (IGF2) on the same parameters, asking whether higher doses of BDNF would promote recovery. METHODS: After BBA, growth factors were injected (30 μL volume) daily into the LLS muscle over 14, 28, or 56 days. At 56 days, video-based motion analysis of vibrissal whisking was performed and the extent of mono- and poly-reinnervation of the reinnervated neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) of the muscle determined with immunostaining of the nerve with β-tubulin and histochemical staining of the endplates with Alexa Fluor 488-conjugated α-bungarotoxin. RESULTS: The dose-response curve demonstrated significantly higher whisking amplitudes and corresponding increased mono-innervation of the NMJ in the reinnervated LLS muscle at concentrations of 20-30 μg/mL BDNF administered daily for 14-28 days after BBA surgery. In contrast, high doses of IGF2 and FGF2, or doses of 20 and 40 μg/mL of BDNF administered for 14-56 days had no effect on either whisking behavior or in reducing poly-reinnervation of endplates in the muscle. DISCUSSION: These data suggest that the re-establishment of mono-innervation of whiskerpad muscles and the improved motor function by injections of BDNF into the paralyzed vibrissal musculature after facial nerve injury have translation potential and promote clinical application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".