Neurosilence: Profound Suppression of Neural Activity following Intracerebral Administration of the Protein Synthesis Inhibitor Anisomycin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early in their formation, memories are thought to be labile, requiring a process called consolidation to give them near-permanent stability. Evidence for consolidation as an active and biologically separate mnemonic process has been established through posttraining manipulations of the brain that promote or disrupt subsequent retrieval. Consolidation is thought to be ultimately mediated via protein synthesis since translational inhibitors such as anisomycin disrupt subsequent memory when administered in a critical time window just following initial learning. However, when applied intracerebrally, they may induce additional neural disturbances. Here, we report that intrahippocampal microinfusions of anisomycin in urethane-anesthetized rats at dosages previously used in memory consolidation studies strongly suppressed (and in some cases abolished) spontaneous and evoked local field potentials (and associated extracellular current flow) as well as multiunit activity. These effects were not coupled to the production of pathological electrographic activity nor were they due to cell death. However, the amount of suppression was correlated with the degree of protein synthesis inhibition as measured by autoradiography and was also observed with cycloheximide, another translational inhibitor. Our results suggest that (1) the amnestic effects of protein synthesis inhibitors are confounded by neural silencing and that (2) intact protein synthesis is crucial for neural signaling itself.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".