γ‐aminobutyric acid type A receptors that contain the δ subunit promote memory and neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors that contain the δ subunit (δGABAA receptors) are highly expressed in the dentate gyrus (DG) subfield of the hippocampus, where they generate a tonic conductance that regulates neuronal activity. GABAA receptor-dependent signaling regulates memory and also facilitates postnatal neurogenesis in the adult DG; however, the role of the δGABAA receptors in these processes is unclear. Accordingly, we sought to determine whether δGABAA receptors regulate memory behaviors, as well as neurogenesis in the DG. METHODS: Memory and neurogenesis were studied in wild-type (WT) mice and transgenic mice that lacked δGABAA receptors (Gabrd(-/-)). To pharmacologically increase δGABAA receptor activity, mice were treated with the δGABAA receptor-preferring agonist 4,5,6,7-tetrahydroisoxazolo(5,4-c)pyridin-3-ol (THIP). Behavioral assays including recognition memory, contextual discrimination, and fear extinction were used. Neurogenesis was studied by measuring the proliferation, survival, migration, maturation, and dendritic complexity of adult-born neurons in the DG. RESULTS: Gabrd(-/-) mice exhibited impaired recognition memory and contextual discrimination relative to WT mice. Fear extinction was also impaired in Gabrd(-/-) mice, although the acquisition of fear memory was enhanced. Neurogenesis was disrupted in Gabrd(-/-) mice as the migration, maturation, and dendritic development of adult-born neurons were impaired. Long-term treatment with THIP facilitated learning and neurogenesis in WT but not Gabrd(-/-) mice. INTERPRETATION: δGABAA receptors promote the performance of certain DG-dependent memory behaviors and facilitate neurogenesis. Furthermore, δGABAA receptors can be pharmacologically targeted to enhance these processes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".