Regulation of tissue regeneration and repair by the peripheral nervous system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphibians display a remarkable capacity for tissue regeneration, with some able to regrow entire limbs. In mammals, while tissues such as skin, bones and skeletal muscles are capable of repair following injury, true multilineage regeneration is rare and restricted to the distal region of the digit tip. Although the mechanisms governing successful tissue repair and regeneration are still coming to light, it is now appreciated that innervation by local nerves is a necessary component of the regenerative microenvironment. In this Review, we examine the current state of the literature that identifies the role of axon-derived signals, Schwann cells and nerve-derived mesenchymal cells as direct and indirect supporters of tissue repair and regeneration. We will also discuss how these cells function under pathological conditions or situations of aberrant tissue repair. Altogether, these findings underscore the significance of elucidating the role of the peripheral nervous system in tissue homeostasis and repair, with potential implications for the development of targeted therapeutic interventions and regenerative medicine strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".