Physical Activity Stimulates Neurogenesis via Sensory Neuron Activity in Postembryonic Zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical exercise induces neurogenesis in adult and developing animal brains, but how movement promotes neurogenesis remains unclear. Here, we use two independent methods for immobilization, a physical barrier (gel matrix) or a genetic manipulation (CRISPR-Cas9 mutation of chrna1 ), to completely immobilize zebrafish larvae during postembryonic development. Both immobilization methods result in smaller brains, reduced brain cell proliferation, and accelerated neuronal differentiation. Conversely, exercised fish in a swim tunnel had larger brains, increased brain cell proliferation, and delayed neuronal differentiation. Interestingly, these effects of exercise could be mimicked by increasing neural activity pharmacologically using GABA A receptor antagonist pentylenetetrazol, or by artificially activating the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) sensory neurons, which increases swimming. Both promote cell proliferation and delayed neuronal differentiation. Finally, we dissociate the role of muscle contractions from neural activity by artificially activating the DRG neurons in CRISPR- chrna1 mutants, completely reversing neurogenesis defects that result from muscle paralysis.
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) | 0.003 | 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".