Electrical properties of interneurons found within the trigeminal motor nucleus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trigeminal motor nucleus contains the somata of motoneurons innervating the jaw muscles, but also those of interneurons that we have characterized morphologically and immunohistochemically previously. Here we compare their basic physiological characteristics and synaptic inputs from the peri-trigeminal area (PeriV) to those of motoneurons using whole-cell recordings made with pipettes containing biocytin in brainstem slices of rats that had a tracer injected into their masseters. Values for input resistance, spike duration and overall duration of afterhyperpolarization (AHP) were greater for interneurons than for motoneurons. Some interneurons (44%) and motoneurons (33%) had an outward rectification during depolarization. Hyperpolarization-induced inward rectification was seen predominantly in interneurons (85% vs. 31% for motoneurons). Few interneurons (15%) showed depolarization and time-dependent firing frequency accommodation, while half (52%) of the motoneurons did. Rebound excitation at the offset of hyperpolarization was more common in interneurons than in motoneurons (62% vs. 34%). Both populations received synaptic inputs from PeriV. These inputs were predominantly excitatory and were mediated by non-N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamatergic receptors. Response latencies and rise times of the evoked potentials were longer in interneurons than in motoneurons, suggesting that some of the inputs to interneurons could be polysynaptic and/or occurring at distal dendritic locations. Miniature synaptic events could be seen in about half of the neurons in both populations. These results suggest that interneurons can be clearly distinguished from motoneurons on the basis of some electrophysiological properties like the input resistance and spike and AHP durations, and the kinetics of their synaptic inputs from adjacent areas.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".