Target-cell-specific short-term plasticity in local circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term plasticity (STP) denotes changes in synaptic strength that last up to tens of seconds. It is generally thought that STP impacts information transfer across synaptic connections and may thereby provide neurons with, for example, the ability to detect input coherence, to maintain stability and to promote synchronization. STP is due to a combination of mechanisms, including vesicle depletion and calcium accumulation in synaptic terminals. Different forms of STP exist, depending on many factors, including synapse type. Recent evidence shows that synapse dependence holds true even for connections that originate from a single presynaptic cell, which implies that postsynaptic target cell type can determine synaptic short-term dynamics. This arrangement is surprising, since STP itself is chiefly due to presynaptic mechanisms. Target-specific synaptic dynamics in addition imply that STP is not a bug resulting from synapses fatiguing when driven too hard, but rather a feature that is selectively implemented in the brain for specific functional purposes. As an example, target-specific STP results in sequential somatic and dendritic inhibition in neocortical and hippocampal excitatory cells during high-frequency firing. Recent studies also show that the Elfn1 gene specifically controls STP at some synapse types. In addition, presynaptic NMDA receptors have been implicated in synapse-specific control of synaptic dynamics during high-frequency activity. We argue that synapse-specific STP deserves considerable further study, both experimentally and theoretically, since its function is not well known. We propose that synapse-specific STP has to be understood in the context of the local circuit, which requires combining different scientific disciplines ranging from molecular biology through electrophysiology to computer modeling.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".