Regional and sub-regional differences in hippocampal GABAergic neuronal vulnerability in the TgCRND8 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal network activity is predominantly coordinated by γ-amino-butyric acid (GABA)ergic neurons. We have previously hypothesized that the altered excitability of hippocampal neurons in Alzheimer's disease (AD), which manifests as increased in vivo susceptibility to seizures in the TgCRND8 mouse model of AD, may be related to disruption of hippocampal GABAergic neurons. In agreement, our previous study in TgCRND8 mice has shown that hippocampal GABAergic neurons are more vulnerable to AD-related neuropathology than other types of neurons. To further explore the mechanisms behind the observed decrease of GABAergic neurons in 6 month-old TgCRND8 mice, we assessed the relative proportion of somatostatin (SOM), neuropeptide Y (NPY) and paravalbumin (PV) sub-types of GABAergic neurons at the regional and sub-regional level of the hippocampus. We found that NPY expressing GABAergic neurons were the most affected, as they were decreased in CA1-CA2 (pyramidal-, stratum oriens, stratum radiatum and molecular layers), CA3 (specifically in the stratum oriens) and dentate gyrus (specifically in the polymorphic layer) in TgCRND8 mice as compared to non-transgenic controls. SOM expressing GABAergic neurons were decreased in CA1-CA2 (specifically in the stratum oriens) and in the stratum radiatum of CA3, whereas PV neurons were significantly altered in stratum oriens sub-region of CA3. Taken together, these data provide new evidence for the relevance of hippocampal GABAergic neuronal network disruption as a mechanism underlying AD sequelae such as aberrant neuronal excitability, and further point to complex hippocampal regional and sub-regional variation in susceptibility to AD-related neuronal loss.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".