MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290894138 · doi:10.1152/jn.2000.83.1.177

2-Deoxyglucose–Induced Long-Term Potentiation in CA1 Is Not Prevented by Intraneuronal Chelator

2000· article· en· W2290894138 on OpenAlexaff
Yong-Tao Zhao, K. Krnjević

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term potentiationEGTAExcitatory postsynaptic potentialTetanic stimulationChemistryPostsynaptic potentialPost-tetanic potentiationBiophysicsStimulationDeoxyglucoseNeuroscienceIntracellularCalciumBiochemistryBiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In hippocampal slices, temporary (10-20 min) replacement of glucose with 10 mM 2-deoxyglucose is followed by marked and very sustained potentiation of EPSPs (2-DG LTP). To investigate its mechanism, we examined 2-DG's effect in CA1 neurons recorded with sharp 3 M KCl electrodes containing a strong chelator, 50 or 100 mM ethylene glycol-bis(beta-aminoethyl ether)-N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid (EGTA). In most cases, field EPSPs were simultaneously recorded and conventional LTP was also elicited in some cells by tetanic stimulation of stratum radiatum. 2-DG potentiated intracellular EPSP slopes by 48 +/- 5.1% (SE) in nine cells recorded with plain KCl electrodes and by 52 +/- 6.2% in seven cells recorded with EGTA-containing electrodes. In four of the latter cells, tetanic stimulation (twice 100 Hz for 1 s) failed to evoke LTP (2 +/- 1.1%), although field EPSPs were clearly potentiated (by 28 +/- 6.9%). Thus unlike tetanic LTP, 2-DG LTP is not readily prevented by postsynaptic intraneuronal injection of EGTA. These findings agree with other evidence that the rise in postsynaptic (somatic) [Ca(2+)](i) caused by 2-DG is not the principal trigger for the subsequent 2-DG LTP and that it may be a purely presynaptic phenomenon.

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 score0.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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