Neuroligins Mediate Excitatory and Inhibitory Synapse Formation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The balance between excitatory and inhibitory synapses is a tightly regulated process that requires differential recruitment of proteins that dictate the specificity of newly formed contacts. However, factors that control this process remain unidentified. Here we show that members of the neuroligin (NLG) family, including NLG1, NLG2, and NLG3, drive the formation of both excitatory and inhibitory presynaptic contacts. The enrichment of endogenous NLG1 at excitatory contacts and NLG2 at inhibitory synapses supports an important in vivo role for these proteins in the development of both types of contacts. Immunocytochemical and electrophysiological analysis showed that the effects on excitatory and inhibitory synapses can be blocked by treatment with a fusion protein containing the extracellular domain of neurexin-1beta. We also found that overexpression of PSD-95, a postsynaptic binding partner of NLGs, resulted in a shift in the distribution of NLG2 from inhibitory to excitatory synapses. These findings reveal a critical role for NLGs and their synaptic partners in controlling the number of inhibitory and excitatory synapses. Furthermore, relative levels of PSD-95 alter the ratio of excitatory to inhibitory synaptic contacts by sequestering members of the NLG family to excitatory synapses.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it