General Anesthetics Inhibit Gap Junction Communication in Cultured Organotypic Hippocampal Slices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gap junctions are protein channels that directly connect the cytosol of neighboring cells, thus forming electrical synapses and promoting synchronous neuronal activities. Such activities lead to the initiation and propagation of electroencephalogram oscillations implicated in cognition and consciousness. In this study, we investigated the effects of propofol, thiopental, and halothane on gap junction communication in cultured organotypic hippocampal slices by recovery of fluorescence after photo bleaching (FRAP) technique and electrophysiological recordings. Propofol 15 microM and thiopental 10 microM attenuated gap junction communication in slice cultures by 46.7% +/- 4.5% and 48.8% +/- 5.5%, respectively, as measured by FRAP. Smaller concentrations of propofol 5 microM and thiopental 2 microM did not change gap junction coupling. Accompanying the decreased gap junction communication, hippocampus slice cultures exposed to propofol 15 microM and thiopental 10 microM were found to have reduced electrophysiologic spontaneous discharges and primary after discharges evoked by a tetanic train of 50 Hz for 2 s. On the other hand, halothane 0.64 mM, a concentration slightly larger than twice its minimum alveolar concentration had no effect on gap junction coupling while halothane 2.8 mM blocked FRAP by 70%. The current study illustrates that anesthetic concentrations of propofol and thiopental, but not halothane, attenuate gap junction communication in cultured hippocampal slices. Suppression of gap junction function could compound the mechanisms of anesthetic actions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".