Replacement of Asymmetric Synaptic Profiles in the Molecular Layer of Dentate Gyrus Following Cycloheximide in the Pilocarpine Model in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mossy fiber sprouting is among the best-studied forms of post-lesional synaptic plasticity and is regarded by many as contributory to seizures in both humans and animal models of epilepsy. It is not known whether mossy fiber sprouting increases the number of synapses in the molecular layer or merely replaces lost contacts. Using the pilocarpine (Pilo) model of status epilepticus to induce mossy fiber sprouting, and cycloheximide (CHX) to block this sprouting, we evaluated at the ultrastructural level the number and type of asymmetric synaptic contacts in the molecular layer of the dentate gyrus. As expected, whereas Pilo-treated rats had dense silver grain deposits in the inner molecular layer (IML) (reflecting mossy fiber sprouting), pilocarpine + cycloheximide (CHX + Pilo)-treated animals did not differ from controls. Both groups of treated rats (Pilo group and CHX + Pilo group) had reduced density of asymmetric synaptic profiles (putative excitatory synaptic contacts), which was greater for CHX-treated animals. For both treated groups, the loss of excitatory synaptic contacts was even greater in the outer molecular layer than in the best-studied IML (in which mossy fiber sprouting occurs). These results indicate that mossy fiber sprouting tends to replace lost synaptic contacts rather than increase the absolute number of contacts. We speculate that the overall result is more consistent with restored rather than with increased excitability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".