MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989145189 · doi:10.1002/hipo.20582

Hippocampal long‐term potentiation is enhanced in urethane‐anesthetized RGS2 knockout mice

2009· article· en· W1989145189 on OpenAlexaff
R. Matthew Hutchison, Peter Chidiac, L. Stan Leung

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term potentiationRGS2Excitatory postsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceKnockout mouseSynaptic plasticityPostsynaptic potentialPopulationRegulator of G protein signalingHippocampal formationChemistryBiologyCell biologySignal transductionInhibitory postsynaptic potentialG proteinMedicineReceptorGTPase-activating proteinBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RGS2 is a member of the regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) family and has been implicated in cellular mechanisms associated with neuronal plasticity. Long-term potentiation (LTP) of RGS2 knockout and wild-type mice was examined at the Schaffer collaterals to CA1 pathway in urethane-anesthetized mice in vivo to examine RGS2's possible role in the regulation of potentiation. As compared to wild-type mice, RGS2 knockouts demonstrated much stronger LTP of the extracellular population spikes at the somatic and dendritic layers in CA1 region and more pronounced LTP of the population excitatory postsynaptic current sink. Under baseline conditions, RGS2 knockouts showed lower paired-pulse facilitation of the excitatory postsynaptic potentials and associated current sinks in vivo as compared with wild-type mice. The data show for the first time that RGS2 deficient mice in vivo differ from wild-type mice in both short-term and long-term synaptic plasticity suggesting that RGS2 serves as a negative regulator of long-term synaptic plasticity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207