MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SK Channels Provide a Novel Mechanism for the Control of Frequency Tuning in Electrosensory Neurons

2007· article· en· W2011845415 on OpenAlexafffund
Lee Ellis, W. Hamish Mehaffey, Erik Harvey‐Girard, Ray W. Turner, Leonard Maler, Robert Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsNeuroscienceBurstingStimulus (psychology)Sensory systemNeuronApaminExcitatory postsynaptic potentialBiologyPsychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPotassium channelBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One important characteristic of sensory input is frequency, with sensory neurons often tuned to narrow stimulus frequency ranges. Although vital for many neural computations, the cellular basis of such frequency tuning remains mostly unknown. In the electrosensory system of Apteronotus leptorhynchus, the primary processing of important environmental and communication signals occurs in pyramidal neurons of the electrosensory lateral line lobe. Spike trains transmitted by these cells can encode low-frequency prey stimuli with bursts of spikes and high-frequency communication signals with single spikes. Here, we demonstrate that the selective expression of SK2 channels in a subset of pyramidal neurons reduces their response to low-frequency stimuli by opposing their burst responses. Apamin block of the SK2 current in this subset of cells induced bursting and increased their response to low-frequency inputs. SK channel expression thus provides an intrinsic mechanism that predisposes a neuron to respond to higher frequencies and thus specific, behaviorally relevant stimuli.

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)0.006
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations74
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207