MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dendritic Spine Ultrastructure in Fragile X syndrome: Evidence for Narrower Neck Widths in Dentate Gyrus Granule Cell Neurons of the Hippocampus

2015· article· en· W2223621727 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick C. Nahirney, Samuel Weiser‐Novak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDendritic spineDentate gyrusFragile X syndromeHippocampal formationUltrastructurePostsynaptic potentialElectron microscopeHippocampusGyrusBiologyAnatomyChemistryMedicinePathologyNeuroscienceInternal medicineGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) is a prevalent monogenic disease that presents neurological abnormalities including learning/memory deficits, autism and epilepsy. The Fmr1 gene ‐ transcriptionally silenced in FXS ‐ normally encodes the Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein (FMRP), of which its function is still obscure, but has been shown to localize at dendritic spines of cortical neurons. In an attempt to understand its role, dendritic spines in the dentate gyrus (DG) and cornu ammonis 1 (CA1) hippocampal regions of 21 day FMRP knockout (KO) mice were analyzed and compared to wildtype (WT) littermate controls using electron microscopy. Spines continuous with a parent dendrite were only included in our analyses. There were no significant differences in spine head diameters (DG: 0.529 ±0.014 vs 0.524 ±0.016; CA1: 0.515 ±0.014 vs 0.524 ±0.014µm), postsynaptic density lengths (DG: 6.18 ±0.85 vs 5.69 ±0.30; CA1: 7.55 ±0.87 vs 6.96 ±0.33µm/100µm 2 ) or spine neck lengths (DG: 0.485 ±0.019 vs 0.457 ±0.016; CA1: 0.425 ±0.017 vs 0.421 ±0.015µm) in KO vs WT mice. Spine neck diameters, however, were significantly narrower in the DG of FMRP KO mice (0.193 ±0.0062 vs 0.167 ±0.0064µm) whereas no significant differences were observed in the CA1 (0.162 ±0.0049 vs 0.161 ±0.0061µm). Estimated resistance provided by narrower spine necks in the DG revealed a ~1.7 fold increase in the resistivity of spines. Taken together, these findings suggest that FMRP plays a role in granule cell neuron spine neck structure and may influence signal propagation in a regionally‐specific manner in the hippocampus.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders→French-language works237,207→