Regenerated synaptic terminals on a crayfish slow muscle identify with transplanted phasic or tonic axons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phasic or tonic nerves transplanted onto a denervated slow superficial flexor muscle in adult crayfish regenerated synaptic connections that displayed large or small excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs), respectively, suggesting that the neuron specifies the type of synapse that forms (Krause et al., J Neurophysiol 80:994-997, 1998). To test the hypothesis that such neuronal specification would extend to the synaptic structure as well, we examined the regenerated synaptic terminals with thin serial section electron microscopy. There are distinct differences in structure between regenerated phasic and tonic innervation. The phasic nerve provides more profuse innervation because innervation sites occurred more frequently and contained larger numbers of synaptic terminals than the tonic nerve. Preterminal axons of the phasic nerve also had many more sprouts than those of the tonic nerve. Phasic terminals were thinner and had a lower mitochondrial volume than their tonic counterparts. Phasic synapses were half the size of tonic ones, although their active zone-dense bars were similar in length. The density of active zones was higher in the phasic compared with the tonic innervation, based on estimates of the number of dense bars per synapse, per synaptic area, and per nerve terminal volume. Because these differences mirror those seen between phasic and tonic axons in crayfish muscle in situ, we conclude that the structure of the regenerated synaptic terminals identify with their transplanted axons rather than with their target muscle. Therefore, during neuromuscular regeneration in adult crayfish, the motoneuron appears to specify the identity of synaptic connections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".