Neuronal Somata and Extrasomal Compartments Play Distinct Roles during Synapse Formation between<i>Lymnaea</i>Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proper synapse formation is pivotal for all nervous system functions. However, the precise mechanisms remain elusive. Moreover, compared with the neuromuscular junction, steps regulating the synaptogenic program at central cholinergic synapses remain poorly defined. In this study, we identified different roles of neuronal compartments (somal vs extrasomal) in chemical and electrical synaptogenesis. Specifically, the electrically synapsed Lymnaea pedal dorsal A cluster neurons were used to study electrical synapses, whereas chemical synaptic partners, visceral dorsal 4 (presynaptic, cholinergic), and left pedal dorsal 1 (LPeD1; postsynaptic) were explored for chemical synapse formation. Neurons were cultured in a soma-soma or soma-axon configuration and synapses explored electrophysiologically. We provide the first direct evidence that electrical synapses develop in a soma-soma, but not soma-axon (removal of soma) configuration, indicating the requirement of gene transcription regulation in the somata of both synaptic partners. In addition, the soma-soma electrical coupling was contingent upon trophic factors present in Lymnaea brain-conditioned medium. Further, we demonstrate that chemical (cholinergic) synapses between soma-soma and soma-axon pairs were indistinguishable, with both exhibiting a high degree of contact site and target cell type specificity. We also provide direct evidence that presynaptic cell contact-mediated, clustering of postsynaptic cholinergic receptors at the synaptic site requires transmitter-receptor interaction, receptor internalization, and a protein kinase C-dependent lateral migration toward the contact site. This study provides novel insights into synaptogenesis between central neurons revealing both distinct and synergistic roles of cell-cell signaling and extrinsic trophic factors in executing the synaptogenic program.
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) | 0.001 | 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".