Investigation of central pattern generators in the spinal cord of chicken embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For most quadrupeds, locomotion involves alternating movements of the fore- and hindlimbs. In birds, however, while walking generally involves alternating movements of the legs, to generate lift and thrust, the wings are moved synchronously with each other. Neural circuits in the spinal cord, referred to as central pattern generators (CPGs), are the source of the basic locomotor rhythms and patterns. Given the differences in the patterns of movement of the wings and legs, it is likely that the neuronal components and connectivity of the CPG that coordinates wing movements differ from those that coordinate leg movements. In this study, we used in vitro preparations of embryonic chicken spinal cords (E11-E14) to compare the neural responses of spinal CPGs that control and coordinate wing flapping with those that control alternating leg movements. We found that in response to N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) or a combination of NMDA and serotonin (5-HT), the intact chicken spinal cord produced rhythmic outputs that were synchronous both bilaterally and between the wing and leg segments. Despite this, we found that this rhythmic output was disrupted by an antagonist of glycine receptors in the lumbosacral (legs), but not the brachial (wing) segments. Thus, our results provide evidence of differences between CPGs that control the wings and legs in the spinal cord of birds.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".