Muscarinic Receptors Control Frequency Tuning Through the Downregulation of an A-Type Potassium Current
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional role of cholinergic input in the modulation of sensory responses was studied using a combination of in vivo and in vitro electrophysiology supplemented by mathematical modeling. The electrosensory system of weakly electric fish recognizes different environmental stimuli by their unique alteration of a self-generated electric field. Variations in the patterns of stimuli are primarily distinguished based on their frequency. Pyramidal neurons in the electrosensory lateral line lobe (ELL) are often tuned to respond to specific input frequencies. Alterations in the tuning of the pyramidal neurons may allow weakly electric fish to preferentially select for certain stimuli. Here we show that muscarinic receptor activation in vivo enhances the excitability, burst firing, and subsequently the response of pyramidal cells to naturalistic sensory input. Through a combination of in vitro electrophysiology and mathematical modeling, we reveal that this enhanced excitability and bursting likely results from the down-regulation of an A-type potassium current. Further, we provide an explanation of the mechanism by which these currents can mediate frequency tuning.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".