Diverse Responses of Oligodendrocytes to Different FGF-Family Members: Uncoupling Structure-Function Relationship Within FGF Subfamilies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fifteen canonical paracrine fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) are organized in five subfamilies that interact with four FGF-receptors (FGFRs) and heparan sulfate proteoglycan (HSPG) co-receptors. Many of these FGFs are expressed in CNS regions where oligodendrocyte (OL) progenitors originate, migrate or differentiate. FGF2 (basic FGF) is considered a prototype FGF and the information about the effects of FGF signaling on OL-lineage cells has evolved largely from the study of FGF2. However, other FGFs from four subfamilies ((FGF1 (FGF1,-2), FGF4 (FGF4,-5,-6), FGF8 (FGF8,-17,-18) and FGF9 (FGF9,-16,-20)) that can interact with the isoforms of FGFRs expressed in OL-lineage cells may also play important roles. We previously reported OL-responses to FGF8 family members. Here, we investigate the effects of members of the FGF1,-4, and -9 subfamilies on proliferation and differentiation of OL progenitors (OPCs), and on cell cycle re-entry and down-regulation of myelin proteins by mature OLs. We found that while FGF2 induced all these responses strongly, FGF4,-6,-9 could do so only transiently and in the presence of exogenous HSPGs, and that FGF5,-16,-20 could not do so even in the presence of heparin or at higher concentrations. Furthermore, we noted that structurally similar FGFs within subfamilies did not always show similarities in their biological effects on OL-lineage cells. Taken together, these studies reveal that FGFs differ in the way they regulate the OL-lineage cells, emphasizes the selectivity and importance of HSPGs as FGF co-receptors in OL-lineage cells and suggests that structural similarity among FGF-subfamily members may not always predict their overlapping biological functions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".