Heterosynaptic modulation of evoked synaptic potentials in layer II of the entorhinal cortex by activation of the parasubiculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The superficial layers of the entorhinal cortex receive sensory and associational cortical inputs and provide the hippocampus with the majority of its cortical sensory input. The parasubiculum, which receives input from multiple hippocampal subfields, sends its single major output projection to layer II of the entorhinal cortex, suggesting that it may modulate processing of synaptic inputs to the entorhinal cortex. Indeed, stimulation of the parasubiculum can enhance entorhinal responses to synaptic input from the piriform cortex in vivo. Theta EEG activity contributes to spatial and mnemonic processes in this region, and the current study assessed how stimulation of the parasubiculum with either single pulses or short, five-pulse, theta-frequency trains may modulate synaptic responses in layer II entorhinal stellate neurons evoked by stimulation of layer I afferents in vitro. Parasubicular stimulation pulses or trains suppressed responses to layer I stimulation at intervals of 5 ms, and parasubicular stimulation trains facilitated layer I responses at a train-pulse interval of 25 ms. This suggests that firing of parasubicular neurons during theta activity may heterosynaptically enhance incoming sensory inputs to the entorhinal cortex. Bath application of the hyperpolarization-activated cation current (Ih) blocker ZD7288 enhanced the facilitation effect, suggesting that cholinergic inhibition of Ih may contribute. In addition, repetitive pairing of parasubicular trains and layer I stimulation induced a lasting depression of entorhinal responses to layer I stimulation. These findings provide evidence that theta activity in the parasubiculum may promote heterosynaptic modulation effects that may alter sensory processing in the entorhinal cortex.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".