MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333165720 · doi:10.1038/ncomms11251

Real-time imaging of glutamate clearance reveals normal striatal uptake in Huntington disease mouse models

2016· article· en· W2333165720 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew P. Parsons, Matthieu P. Vanni, Cameron L. Woodard, Rujun Kang, Timothy H. Murphy, Lynn A. Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsGlutamate receptorHuntington's diseaseStriatumNeuroscienceExcitotoxicityExcitatory amino-acid transporterBiologyExtracellularBiophysicsChemistryCell biologyBiochemistryMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has become well accepted that Huntington disease (HD) is associated with impaired glutamate uptake, resulting in a prolonged time-course of extracellular glutamate that contributes to excitotoxicity. However, the data supporting this view come largely from work in synaptosomes, which may overrepresent nerve-terminal uptake over astrocytic uptake. Here, we quantify real-time glutamate dynamics in HD mouse models by high-speed imaging of an intensity-based glutamate-sensing fluorescent reporter (iGluSnFR) and electrophysiological recordings of synaptically activated transporter currents in astrocytes. These techniques reveal a disconnect between the results obtained in synaptosomes and those in situ. Exogenous glutamate uptake is impaired in synaptosomes, whereas real-time measures of glutamate clearance in the HD striatum are normal or even accelerated, particularly in the aggressive R6/2 model. Our results highlight the importance of quantifying glutamate dynamics under endogenous release conditions, and suggest that the widely cited uptake impairment in HD does not contribute to pathogenesis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations103
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207