MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contribution of AMPA, NMDA, and GABA<sub>A</sub>Receptors to Temporal Pattern of Postsynaptic Responses in the Inferior Colliculus of the Rat

2004· article· en· W2168902993 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Hui Wu, Chun Lei, Jack B. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersFondation Pour l'Audition
KeywordsInferior colliculusAMPA receptorNeurosciencePostsynaptic potentialNMDA receptorGlutamate receptorExcitatory postsynaptic potentialSuperior colliculusPostsynaptic densityGABAA receptorChemistryLong-term depressionReceptorBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialBiochemistryNucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central nucleus of the inferior colliculus (ICC) is a major site of synaptic interaction in the central auditory system. To understand how ICC neurons integrate excitatory and inhibitory inputs for processing temporal information, we examined postsynaptic responses of ICC neurons to repetitive stimulation of the lateral lemniscus at 10-100 Hz in rat brain slices. The excitatory synaptic currents mediated by AMPA and NMDA receptors and the inhibitory current mediated by GABA(A) receptors were pharmacologically isolated and recorded by whole-cell patch-clamp techniques. The response kinetics of AMPA receptor-mediated EPSCs and GABA(A) receptor-mediated IPSCs were similar and much faster than those of NMDA receptor-mediated EPSCs. AMPA EPSCs could follow each pulse of stimulation at a rate of 10-100 Hz but showed response depression during the course of repetitive stimulation. GABA(A) IPSCs could also follow stimulus pulses over this frequency range but showed depression at low rates and facilitation at higher rates. NMDA EPSCs showed facilitation and temporal summation in response to repetitive stimulation, which was most pronounced at higher rates of stimulation. GABA(A) inhibition suppressed activation of NMDA receptors and reduced both the degree of AMPA EPSC depression and the extent of temporal summation of NMDA EPSCs. The results indicate that GABA(A) receptor-mediated inhibition plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of excitation and inhibition and in allowing ICC neurons to process temporal information more precisely.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations95
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207