MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1900605886 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22295

The maintenance of long‐term memory in the hippocampus depends on the interaction between <i>N</i>‐ethylmaleimide‐sensitive factor and GluA2

2014· article· en· W1900605886 on OpenAlexafffund
Paola V. Migues, Oliver Hardt, Peter S.B. Finnie, Yu Tian Wang, Karim Nader

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAMPA receptorMemory consolidationNeuroscienceHippocampusChemistryPsychologyReceptorGlutamate receptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maintenance of established memories has recently been shown to involve the stabilization of GluA2-containing AMPA receptors (GluA2/AMPARs) at postsynaptic membranes. Previous studies have suggested that N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor (NSF) regulates the stabilization of AMPARs at the synaptic membrane. We therefore disrupted the interaction between GluA2 and NSF in the dorsal hippocampus and examined its effect on the maintenance of object location and contextual fear memory. We used two interference peptides, pep2m and pepR845A, that have been shown to block the binding of NSF to GluA2 and reduce GluA2 synaptic content. Either peptide disrupted consolidated memory, and these effects persisted for at least 5 or 28 days after peptide administration. Following peptide administration and long-term memory disruption, rats were able to acquire new memories. Memory acquisition or consolidation was not impaired when pepR845A was given immediately before the training sessions. Blocking GluA2 endocytosis with the peptide GluA23Y prevented the memory impairment effect of pepR845A. Taken together, our results indicate that the persistence of long-term memory depends on the maintenance of a steady-state level of synaptic GluA2/AMPARs, which requires the interaction of NSF with GluA2.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207