Ischemia and Ischemic Tolerance Induction Differentially Regulate Protein Expression of GluR1, GluR2, and AMPA Receptor Binding Protein in the Gerbil Hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Postischemic delayed neuronal death (DND) of hippocampal CA1 neurons has been suggested to occur as a result of formation of calcium-permeable alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) receptors lacking the GluR2 subunit (GluR2 hypothesis). DND can be prevented by a short tolerance-inducing ischemic period. The present study was designed to assess whether postischemic protein levels of GluR2 predict neuronal death. Additionally, the role of AMPA receptor binding protein (ABP) was investigated with respect to neuronal death or survival. METHODS: Postischemic protein expression of GluR1, GluR2, and ABP was analyzed in 3 experimental paradigms of transient global ischemia with the use of subunit-specific antisera and semiquantitative densitometric evaluation. Gerbils were subjected (1) to a 5-minute ischemic period resulting in DND of CA1 neurons; (2) to a 2.5-minute period of ischemia mediating tolerance induction; and (3) to 5 minutes of ischemia in the ischemia-tolerant state (2.5+5 minutes of ischemia 4 days apart). RESULTS: The major finding was that GluR2 protein levels were significantly downregulated in neuronal subpopulations destined to survive, ie, in CA1 principal neurons after ischemic tolerance induction and in the ischemia-tolerant state, as well as in CA3 neurons after a 5-minute period of ischemia. ABP expression remained unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Our results modify the GluR2 hypothesis in that postischemic GluR2 reduction also occurs in hippocampal CA1 and CA3 principal neurons without subsequent neuronal death. ABP is obviously not involved in mechanisms of DND or ischemic tolerance induction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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, 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".