MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148316184 · doi:10.1002/hipo.22466

Cholinergic, but not<scp>NMDA</scp>, receptors in the lateral entorhinal cortex mediate acquisition in trace eyeblink conditioning

2015· article· en· W2148316184 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie E. Tanninen, Xiaotian Yu, Thamy Giritharan, Lina Tran, Rami Bakir, Julien Volle, Mark D. Morrissey, Kaori Takehara‐Nishiuchi

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsStem Cell NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceEyeblink conditioningEntorhinal cortexClassical conditioningPsychologyMuscarinic acetylcholine receptorEngramChemistryNMDA receptorReceptorHippocampusConditioning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatomical and electrophysiological studies collectively suggest that the entorhinal cortex consists of several subregions, each of which is involved in the processing of different types of information. Consistent with this idea, we previously reported that the dorsolateral portion of the entorhinal cortex (DLE), but not the caudomedial portion, is necessary for the expression of a memory association between temporally discontiguous stimuli in trace eyeblink conditioning (Morrissey et al. (2012) J Neurosci 32:5356-5361). The present study examined whether memory acquisition depends on the DLE and what types of local neurotransmitter mechanisms are involved in memory acquisition and expression. Male Long-Evans rats experienced trace eyeblink conditioning, in which an auditory conditioned stimulus (CS) was paired with a mildly aversive electric shock to the eyelid (US) with a stimulus-free interval of 500 ms. Immediately before the conditioning, the rats received a microinfusion of neuroreactive substances into the DLE. We found that reversible inactivation of the DLE with GABAA receptor agonist, muscimol impaired memory acquisition. Furthermore, blockade of local muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mACh) with scopolamine retarded memory acquisition while blockade of local NMDA receptors with APV had no effect. Memory expression was not impaired by either type of receptor blocker. These results suggest that the DLE is necessary for memory acquisition, and that acquisition depends on the integrity of local mACh receptor-dependent firing modulation, but not NMDA receptor-dependent synaptic plasticity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207