MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085859951 · doi:10.1152/jn.00710.2002

Synaptic Modulation by a Neuropeptide Depends on Temperature and Extracellular Calcium

2003· article· en· W2085859951 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler W. Dunn, A. Joffre Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcitatory postsynaptic potentialBiophysicsCalciumChemistryNeuropeptideExtracellularNeurotransmissionNeurosciencePeptideLong-term potentiationBiologyBiochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The crayfish neuropeptide DRNFLRFamide increases transmitter release from synaptic terminals onto muscle cells. As temperature decreases from 20 to 8 degrees C, the size of excitatory junctional potentials (EJPs) decreases, and the peptide becomes more effective at increasing EJP amplitude. The goal of the present study was to determine whether the enhanced effectiveness of the peptide is strictly a temperature-related effect, or whether it is related to the fact that the EJPs are smaller at low temperature, allowing a greater range for EJP amplitude to increase. Decreasing temperature reduced the number of quanta of transmitter released per nerve impulse (assessed by recording synaptic currents) and increased input resistance in muscle fibers. As in earlier work, the ability of the peptide to increase EJP amplitude was enhanced by decreasing temperature. However, the peptide was also more effective at increasing EJP amplitude when transmitter output was lowered by reducing the ratio of calcium to magnesium ions in the bath. Thus the effectiveness of the peptide may be related to the level of output from the synaptic terminals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207