MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084236276 · doi:10.1073/pnas.161493498

A hebbian form of long-term potentiation dependent on mGluR1a in hippocampal inhibitory interneurons

2001· article· en· W2084236276 on OpenAlexaff
Yaël Perez, France Morin, Jean‐Claude Lacaille

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term potentiationNeuroscienceExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPostsynaptic potentialSynaptic plasticityMetabotropic glutamate receptorPost-tetanic potentiationHippocampal formationBiologyGlutamate receptorChemistryReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hippocampal inhibitory interneurons play important roles in controlling the excitability and synchronization of pyramidal cells, but whether they express long-term synaptic plasticity that contributes to hippocampal network function remains uncertain. We found that pairing postsynaptic depolarization with theta-burst stimulation induced long-term potentiation (LTP) of putative single-fiber excitatory postsynaptic currents in interneurons. Either postsynaptic depolarization or theta-burst stimulation alone failed to induce LTP. LTP was expressed as a decrease in failure rates and an increase in excitatory postsynaptic current amplitude, independent of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors, and dependent on metabotropic glutamate receptors subtype 1a. LTP was induced specifically in interneurons in stratum oriens and not in interneurons of stratum radiatum/lacunosum-moleculare. Thus, excitatory synapses onto specific subtypes of inhibitory interneurons express a new form of hebbian LTP that will contribute to hippocampal network plasticity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations213
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207