MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137972183 · doi:10.1101/lm.498402

“Silent” Metaplasticity of the Late Phase of Long-Term Potentiation Requires Protein Phosphatases

2002· article· en· W2137972183 on OpenAlexafffund
Newton H. Woo, Peter Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning & Memory · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsLong-term potentiationChemistryLTP inductionNeurosciencePhosphataseSynaptic plasticityMetaplasticityNMDA receptorNeurotransmissionExcitatory postsynaptic potentialHippocampal formationHippocampusProtein phosphatase 1Protein phosphatase 2Inhibitory postsynaptic potentialBiologyPhosphorylationBiochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The late phase of long-term potentiation (L-LTP) is correlated with some types of long-term memory, but the mechanisms by which L-LTP is modulated by prior synaptic activity are undefined. Activation of protein phosphatases by low-frequency stimulation (LFS) given before induction of L-LTP may significantly modify L-LTP. Using cellular electrophysiological recording methods in mouse hippocampal slices, we show that LFS given before induction of L-LTP inhibited L-LTP in an activity-dependent manner without affecting either basal synaptic strength or the early phase of LTP (E-LTP). This anterograde inhibitory effect of LFS was persistent, required N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor activation, and was blocked by inhibitors of protein phosphatase 1 (PP1) and protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A). These data indicate that certain patterns of LFS can activate PP1 and/or PP2A, and that long-lasting activation of these phosphatases by prior LFS can suppress the subsequent expression of L-LTP without affecting E-LTP. Because this inhibition of L-LTP is caused by prior synaptic activity that, alone, produced no net effect on synaptic efficacy, we suggest that this is a "silent" form of metaplasticity that may influence long-term information storage by modulating the capacity of synapses to express L-LTP after repeated bouts of activity.

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 score0.002

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations50
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLearning & MemorySame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207