AMPA receptor‐mediated cell death is reduced by docosahexaenoic acid but not by eicosapentaenoic acid in area CA1 of hippocampal slice cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, several studies have shown that high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in the brain might limit neuronal damage in various pathological conditions. For example, in animal models of Alzheimer's disease, omega-3 type PUFAs such as docosahexaenoic (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic (EPA) acids have been proposed to decrease both the cognitive and the cellular manifestations of premature ageing. The mechanisms by which they promote brain integrity remain to be established, and the experiments on cultured hippocampal slices described here examine the possibility that omega-3 fatty acids can modulate brain cell viability by interacting with glutamate receptors. We observed, by lactate dehydrogenase release and propidium iodide (PI) uptake, that excitotoxicity triggered by an alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptor agonist was markedly reduced in hippocampal slices treated with DHA. PI uptake experiments also revealed that neuroprotection by DHA was restricted to the hippocampal CA1 region and could not be reproduced by EPA or arachidonic acid, an omega-6 PUFA. Moreover, the beneficial effect of DHA was specific to AMPA receptor stimulation, insofar as the toxicity induced by N-methyl-D-aspartate or kainate receptor agonists was not diminished by DHA preincubation. Biotinylation experiments finally indicated that the neuroprotective actions of DHA could result from down-regulation of AMPA receptors in hippocampal membranes. This investigation thus provides the first indication that a beneficial outcome of DHA on the brain could derive from specific modulation of AMPA-mediated toxicity, reinforcing the notion that dietary DHA uptake might be useful in preventing neurodegenerative diseases.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".