Expansion and retraction of hippocampal mossy fibers during postweaning development: Strain‐specific effects of NMDA receptor blockade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have recently discovered differences in the distribution of the mossy fiber terminal field (MFTF) between adult Long-Evans rats (LER) and Wistar rats(WR): the suprapyramidal MFTF extends into distal stratum oriens (dSO) in LER, but is nearly absent in WR (Holahan et al.,2006, Hippocampus 16:560-570). To our knowledge, there is no developmental evidence that sheds light on how this strain-dependent MFTF innervation in the adult is achieved. Accordingly, the present study examined the time course of MFTF development from postnatal days 0 to 40 and the effect of NMDA-receptor antagonist 3-(2-carboxypiperazin-4-yl) propyl-1-phosphonic acid (CPP) on this developmental organization. In both LER and WR, a MFTF projection to dSO was observed between P18 and P21. By P24, the dSO projection in WR was no longer detectable whereas in LER, the dSO projection seen on P21 remained. We suggest that in WR a retraction of the MFTF projection from dSO to stratum lucidum between P21 and P24 leads to its adult pattern. In WR, CPP administration enhanced the dSO projection, possibly by blocking the retraction process. In LER, CPP administration reduced the dSO projection. Thus, in each strain, NMDA receptor blockade effectively reversed the developmental course of MFTF pattern of innervation. The present results lend strong support to the view that NMDA receptor regulation of input-dependent processes during development is of critical importance in promoting the motility and target selection of presynaptic MF axons. This regulation extends later into development than had previously been thought.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".