MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-Term<i>In Vivo</i>Imaging of Dendritic Spines in the Hippocampus Reveals Structural Plasticity

2014· article· en· W2031557967 on OpenAlexfundno aff
GU Li-gang, Stefanie Kleiber, Lena Schmid, Felix C. Nebeling, Miriam Chamoun, Julia Steffen, Jens A. Wagner, Martin Fuhrmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative ErkrankungenDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftScience Foundation IrelandHealth Research Board
KeywordsDendritic spineNeuroscienceHippocampal formationDentate gyrusHippocampusSynaptic plasticityExcitatory postsynaptic potentialNeuroplasticityEntorhinal cortexLong-term potentiationBiologyPsychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hippocampal function is important for learning and memory. During memory processing, hippocampal CA1 neurons play a crucial role by integrating excitatory synaptic input from CA3 and the entorhinal cortex. These neurons receive excitatory input almost exclusively on dendritic spines. The formation and elimination--structural plasticity--of dendritic spines reflect wiring changes within the hippocampal network. Despite the relevance of the hippocampus in learning and memory, most in vivo data on structural plasticity derive from cortical regions. We established a chronic hippocampal window approach using two-photon microscopy to visualize dendritic spines throughout all CA1 hippocampal layers and over a time course of weeks. Moreover, even granule cells in dentate gyrus could be reliably detected. We found that the spine density in stratum radiatum (∼1.1 per micrometer) remained stable over weeks. However, a small fraction (3.4%) of spines were formed and eliminated between imaging sessions, which demonstrated that spines of CA1 neurons exhibit structural plasticity in adult mice. In addition, we tested for possible inflammatory or behavioral side effects of hippocampal window implantation. Mice exhibited a transient increase in microgliosis and astrogliosis, which declined within a few weeks. We did not detect any difference in behavioral performance in an open-field and contextual fear-conditioning paradigm. In conclusion, hippocampal long-term two-photon imaging revealed structural plasticity of dendritic spines in CA1 pyramidal neurons. This approach may provide a powerful tool to analyze changes in neuronal network rewiring during hippocampal learning and memory processes in health and disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations101
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207