MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759621709 · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.050

Parvalbumin and Somatostatin Interneurons Control Different Space-Coding Networks in the Medial Entorhinal Cortex

2017· article· en· W2759621709 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chenglin Miao, Qichen Cao, May‐Britt Moser, Edvard I Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueCell · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådRéseau de cancérologie RossyKavli Foundation
KeywordsParvalbuminBiologyNeuroscienceBarrel cortexGABAergicSomatostatinOptogeneticsGene silencingEntorhinal cortexInhibitory postsynaptic potentialHippocampal formationSensory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) contains several discrete classes of GABAergic interneurons, but their specific contributions to spatial pattern formation in this area remain elusive. We employed a pharmacogenetic approach to silence either parvalbumin (PV)- or somatostatin (SOM)-expressing interneurons while MEC cells were recorded in freely moving mice. PV-cell silencing antagonized the hexagonally patterned spatial selectivity of grid cells, especially in layer II of MEC. The impairment was accompanied by reduced speed modulation in colocalized speed cells. Silencing SOM cells, in contrast, had no impact on grid cells or speed cells but instead decreased the spatial selectivity of cells with discrete aperiodic firing fields. Border cells and head direction cells were not affected by either intervention. The findings point to distinct roles for PV and SOM interneurons in the local dynamics underlying periodic and aperiodic firing in spatially modulated cells of the MEC. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

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 score0.004

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations142
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCellSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207