Neuron-specific RNA-sequencing reveals different responses in peripheral neurons after nerve injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Peripheral neurons are heterogeneous and functionally diverse, but all share the capability to switch to a pro-regenerative state after nerve injury. Despite the assumption that the injury response is similar among neuronal subtypes, functional recovery may differ. Understanding the distinct intrinsic regenerative properties between neurons may help to improve the quality of regeneration, prioritizing the growth of axon subpopulations to their targets. Here, we present a comparative analysis of regeneration across four key peripheral neuron populations: motoneurons, proprioceptors, cutaneous mechanoreceptors, and nociceptors. Using Cre/Ai9 mice that allow fluorescent labelling of neuronal subtypes, we found that nociceptors showed the greater regeneration after a sciatic crush, followed by motoneurons, mechanoreceptors and, finally, proprioceptors. By breeding these Cre mice with Ribotag mice, we isolated specific translatomes and defined the regenerative response of these neuronal subtypes after axotomy. Only 20% of the regulated genes were common, revealing a diverse response to injury among neurons, which was also supported by the differential influence of neurotrophins among neuron subtypes. Among differentially regulated genes, we proposed MED12 as a specific regulator of the regeneration of proprioceptors. Altogether, we demonstrate that the intrinsic regenerative capacity differs between peripheral neuron subtypes, opening the door to selectively modulate these responses.
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 | 0.001 |
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".