Organization of efferent peripheral synapses at mechanosensory neurons in spiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanosensory neurons of arachnids receive diverse synaptic inputs in the periphery. The function of most of these synapses, however, is unknown. We have carried out detailed electron microscopic investigations of the peripheral synapses at sensory neurons in the compound slit sense organ VS-3 of the spider Cupiennius salei. Based on the localization of discrete presynaptic vesicle populations, it is possible to discriminate at least four different synapse types, containing either: (1) small round, electron-lucent vesicles 32 nm in diameter; (2) large round, clear 42-nm vesicles; (3) a mixture of small and large clear, round vesicles, similar in size to those in Type 1 and Type 2 synapses, respectively, and granular and dense-core vesicles; or (4) clear, round 37- to 65-nm vesicles. Combined immunocytochemical labeling at the light and the electron microscopic level suggests that gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) is the transmitter in many of the 32-nm vesicle synapses, and glutamate in many of the 42-nm ones. Based on vesicle type and particular synaptic configuration, various forms of presumed efferent synaptic contacts are distinguishable with the sensory neurons, the surrounding glia, and between the putative efferent fibers themselves. These include simple unidirectional synapses, reciprocal synapses, serial synapses, and convergent as well as divergent dyads. These various synaptic microcircuits are suited to serve a variety of functions. Among these are direct postsynaptic inhibition or excitation of the mechanosensory neurons, and disinhibition or sensitization via presynaptic inhibition or excitation. The observed synaptic configurations are compared with those at the crustacean muscle receptor organ. They reveal a remarkable complexity of synaptic microcircuits at spider sensilla and suggest manifold possibilities for subtle, efferent control of sensory activity.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".