Implication of a novel nerve growth factor (NGF) maturation and degradation cascade in the Fischer-344 rat model of age-associated memory deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the overwhelming evidence for atrophy of the NGF-dependant Basal Forebrain Cholinergic neurons during aging, there is no persuasive evidence towards a decrease in NGF and/or NGF mRNA content in the brain of aged animals. Previous experiments from our laboratory have shown that NGF is released as a precursor protein and cleaved into the mature form in the extracellular space under the influence of a complex protease cascade. These recent findings have lead us to propose that any alterations in levels and/or activity of this maturation/degradation cascade might affect NGF's biological activity and perhaps lead to cognitive impairments in a subset of aged rats. To investigate this possibility, we measured protein and mRNA levels of the protease cascade players (NGF, pro-NGF, tPA, plasminogen, plasmin, MMP-9, neuroserpin). We found significantly decreased levels of both pro-NGF protein and NGF mRNA, but no difference in the remaining elements of the protease cascade, when comparing aged impaired (Al) to the aged unimpaired (AU) animals. Our second objective was to investigate whether animals trained in the Morris Water Maze would preserve their cognitive status in two additional behavioral paradigms, the Novel Object Location (NOL, spatial memory) and Novel Object Recognition (NOR, nonspatial memory) tasks. We found that both AU and AI animals in the MWM were impaired in the NOL when compared to the young controls, with the AI animals performing significantly worse than the AU in this particular task. In the NOR tasks, AI animals performed significantly worse compared to both young and AU animals. In conclusion, further experiments are required to better understand the implication of the complex protease cascade involved in NGF's maturation and degradation as well as its effect on memory of aged animals. In addition, because the segregation of animals (aged impaired/unimpaired) is a crucial step in aging research, we now have additional behavioral paradigms (NOL/NOR) that confirm the cognitive status of these animals.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".