DHA supplementation enhances high-frequency, stimulation-induced synaptic transmission in mouse hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While some studies on dietary supplementation with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6n-3) have reported a beneficial effect on memory as a function of age, others have failed to find any effect. To clarify this issue, we sought to determine whether supplementing mice with a DHA-enriched diet could alter the ability of synapses to undergo activity-dependent changes in the hippocampus, a brain structure involved in forming new spatial memories. We found that DHA was increased by 29% ± 5% (mean ± SE) in the hippocampus for the supplemented (DHA+) versus nonsupplemented (control) group (n = 5 mice per group; p < 0.05). Such DHA elevation was associated with enhanced synaptic transmission (p < 0.05) as assessed by application of a high-frequency electrical stimulation protocol (100 Hz stimulation, which induced transient (<2 h) increases in synaptic strength) to slices from DHA+ (n = 4 mice) hippocampi when compared with controls (n = 4 mice). Increased synaptic responses were evident 60 min poststimulation. These results suggest that dietary DHA supplementation facilitates synaptic plasticity following brief high-frequency stimulation. This increase in synaptic transmission might provide a physiological correlation for the improved spatial learning and memory observed following DHA supplementation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".