MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2007697968 · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06887.x

Homeostatic plasticity in a reward processing region: accumbens neurons scale too! (Commentary on Sun & Wolf)

2009· letter· en· W2007697968 sur OpenAlexaff
Jean-Claude Béı̈que

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Établissements canadiensHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeuroscienceHomeostatic plasticityMetaplasticitySynaptic plasticitySynaptic scalingPsychologyMechanism (biology)AddictionContext (archaeology)Neuronal circuitsNeuroplasticityNucleus accumbensBiological neural networkBiologyDopaminePhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

There is an expanding literature that supports the idea that several aspects of addiction to drugs of abuse are behavioral expressions of pathological forms of learning and memory coded in brain circuits involved in reward processing. At a cellular level, it has now been well demonstrated that several drugs of abuse interfere with synaptic plasticity mechanisms in reward regions and thereby influence their function (Wolf et al., 2004; Kauer & Malenka, 2007). In this context, it is relevant to emphasize that whereas LTP and LTD, the two most studied forms of synaptic plasticity, are widely viewed as cellular models of learning and memory, it is also well appreciated that their implementation in neuronal network models carries an inherent stability problem (Turrigiano, 2008). The phenomenon of homeostatic synaptic scaling (O'Brien et al., 1998; Turrigiano et al., 1998) satisfactorily solves many of the issues related to this problem and has thus triggered considerable interest. This plasticity refers to the bi-directional ability of the overall synaptic strength of a neuron to actively compensate for changes in overall excitability levels, presumably to maintain firing rates within an optimal range (Davis, 2006; Turrigiano, 2008). Although homeostatic scaling can intuitively be expected to be found in all circuits where LTP and LTD are operative, including reward processing circuits, we still have an incomplete understanding of the degree of universality of this mechanism in the brain. Also, if such a mechanism were operant in brain reward circuits, would drugs of abuse affect it? If so, by what mechanisms? The study of Sun & Wolf (2009) published in this issue of EJN provides interesting progress along these lines. To begin addressing these questions, the authors sought to determine whether neurons of the nucleus accumbens in an in vitro culture preparation exhibit the core features of homeostatic synaptic scaling. This nucleus, an intricate part of the brain reward pathway implicated in addiction, is overwhelmingly composed of GABAergic medium spiny projection neurons and receives a strong dopaminergic input from the ventral tegmentum area. Experimentally, this network architecture brings an inherent complication for in vitro culture preparation as this structure does not provide an intrinsic glutamatergic drive required for the establishment of functional networks. To circumvent this issue, the authors used a clever co-culture system where accumbens neurons were co-cultured with prefrontal cortex pyramidal neurons (which provide strong excitatory input to accumbens neurons in situ). Using this system, the authors blocked synaptic activity for prolonged periods of time using pharmacological tools and observed a robust compensatory upregulation of surface expression of AMPA receptors (AMPARs), the hallmark of synaptic scaling. Importantly, this synaptic scaling in accumbens neurons was bi-directional, as increases in network activity lead to a reduction of surface expression of AMPARs. As such, these findings show that accumbens neurons, like cortical and spinal neurons, exhibit robust homeostatic synaptic scaling. The authors further worked out some interesting molecular details of this phenomenon. In an attempt to broadly recapitulate in a culture system the conditions of chronic cocaine use, the authors administered repeated dopamine treatments over several days (which is known to enhance surface expression of AMPARs; Wolf et al., 2004) before the scaling challenge. Intriguingly, the dopamine-induced increase in AMPAR expression occluded that induced by scaling challenge. The presence of an occlusion between two phenomena is usually interpreted as indicating some level of commonality between their expression mechanisms. It is possible that there might be fixed upper and lower limits of synaptic strength that cannot be surpassed by the scaling process, and that would be maximized by the dopamine treatment. The outcome of this interplay on overall network function at this point is unclear, so is its pathological role. Extrapolating a little, would cocaine essentially hijack the scaling process? Would it, in effect, modulate its dynamic range? Its gain? Regardless of these mechanistic minutiae that await clarification, this study of Sun & Wolf (2009) firmly establishes the presence of synaptic scaling in a brain region involved in reward and hints that drugs of abuse, like cocaine, may adversely affect its function. Altogether, just as we are trying to understand the computational features of the interaction between homeostatic synaptic scaling and classic synaptic plasticity that are relevant for information storage, this study shows that this challenge likely equally applies to our quest to understand the neural basis of addiction.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,040
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,031

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,007
Communication savante0,0030,008
Science ouverte0,0060,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0400,048
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,118
Tête enseignante GPT0,351
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience→Même sujetNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→Travaux en français237 207→