Connexin and pannexin hemichannels in brain glial cells: properties, pharmacology, and roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional interaction between neurons and glia is an exciting field that has expanded tremendously during the past decade. Such partnership has multiple impacts on neuronal activity and survival. Indeed, numerous findings indicate that glial cells interact tightly with neurons in physiological as well as pathological situations. One typical feature of glial cells is their high expression level of gap junction protein subunits, named connexins (Cxs), thus the membrane channels they form may contribute to neuroglial interaction that impacts neuronal activity and survival. While the participation of gap junction channels in neuroglial interactions has been regularly reviewed in the past, the other channel function of Cxs, i.e., hemichannels located at the cell surface, has only recently received attention. Gap junction channels provide the basis for a unique direct cell-to-cell communication, whereas Cx hemichannels allow the exchange of ions and signaling molecules between the cytoplasm and the extracellular medium, thus supporting autocrine and paracrine communication through a process referred to as "gliotransmission," as well as uptake and release of metabolites. More recently, another family of proteins, termed pannexins (Panxs), has been identified. These proteins share similar membrane topology but no sequence homology with Cxs. They form multimeric membrane channels with pharmacology somewhat overlapping with that of Cx hemichannels. Such duality has led to several controversies in the literature concerning the identification of the molecular channel constituents (Cxs versus Panxs) in glia. In the present review, we update and discuss the knowledge of Cx hemichannels and Panx channels in glia, their properties and pharmacology, as well as the understanding of their contribution to neuroglial interactions in brain health and disease.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".