<i>N</i>‐Methyl‐d‐aspartate and TrkB Receptor Activation in Cerebellar Granule Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delineating the mechanisms of survival pathways that exist in neurons will provide important insight into how neurons utilize intracellular proteins as neuroprotectants against the causes of acute neurodegeneration. We have employed cultured rat cerebellar granule cells as a model for determining the mechanisms of these intraneuronal survival pathways. Glutamate has long been known to kill neurons by an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor-mediated mechanism. Paradoxically, subtoxic concentrations of NMDA protect neurons against glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity. Because NMDA protects neurons in physiologic concentrations of glucose and oxygen, we refer to this phenomenon as physiologic preconditioning. One of the major mechanisms of NMDA neuroprotection involves the activation of NMDA receptors leading to the rapid release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). BDNF then binds to and activates its cognate receptor, receptor tyrosine kinase B (TrkB). The efficient utilization of these two receptors confers remarkable resistance against millimolar concentrations of glutamate that kill more than eighty percent of the neurons in the absence of preconditioning the neurons with a subtoxic concentration of NMDA. Exactly how the neurons mediate neuroprotection by activation of both receptors is just beginning to be understood. Both NMDA and TrkB receptors activate nuclear factor kappaB (NF-kappaB), a transcription factor known to be involved in protecting neurons against many different kinds of toxic insults. By converging on survival transcription factors, such as NF-kappaB, NMDA and TrkB receptors protect neurons. Thus, crosstalk between these very different receptors provides a rapid means of neuronal communication to upregulate survival proteins through release and transcriptional activation of messenger RNA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".