MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048939370 · doi:10.1002/dneu.20331

Genetic and pharmacological studies of GluR5 modulation of inhibitory synaptic transmission in the anterior cingulate cortex of adult mice

2007· article· en· W2048939370 on OpenAlexaff
Long‐Jun Wu, Hui Xu, Ming Ren, Min Zhuo

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Neurobiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialNeurotransmissionGlutamatergicKainate receptorPostsynaptic potentialExcitatory postsynaptic potentialBiologyGlutamate receptorGABAergicPostsynaptic CurrentNeurotransmitterAMPA receptorCentral nervous systemReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), GluR5-containing kainate receptor mediated the small portion of excitatory postsynaptic current. However, little is known about its role in modulation of neurotransmitter release in this brain region. In the present study, we address this question by using selective GluR5 agonist and antagonist, as well as GluR5(-/-) mice. Our results showed that activation of GluR5 induced action potential-dependent GABA release, which is also required for the activation of voltage-dependent calcium channel and Ca(2+) influx. The effect of GluR5 activation is selective to the GABAergic, but not glutamatergic synaptic transmission. Endogenous activation of GluR5 also enhanced GABA release to ACC pyramidal neurons and the corresponding postsynaptic tonic GABA current. Our results suggest the somatodendritic, but not presynaptic GluR5, in modulation of GABA release. The endogenous GluR5 activation and the subsequent tonic GABA current may play an inhibitory role in ACC-related brain functions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental NeurobiologySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207