MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2795595091 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195095

Hippocampal protein kinase D1 is necessary for DHPG-induced learning and memory impairments in rats

2018· article· en· W2795595091 on OpenAlexafffund
Wei Wang, Florian Duclot, Bradley R. Groveman, Nicole Carrier, Haifa Qiao, Xiaoqian Fang, Hui Wang, Wenkuan Xin, Xinghong Jiang, Michael W. Salter, Ding Xin-sheng, Mohamed Kabbaj, Xian‐Min Yu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMorris water navigation taskHippocampal formationNMDA receptorNeuroscienceHippocampusExcitatory postsynaptic potentialChemistryAMPA receptorMetabotropic glutamate receptorGlutamate receptorPharmacologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineReceptorBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Understanding molecular mechanisms underlying the induction of learning and memory impairments remains a challenge. Recent investigations have shown that the activation of group I mGluRs (mGluR1 and mGluR5) in cultured hippocampal neurons by application of (S)-3,5-Dihydroxyphenylglycine (DHPG) causes the regulated internalization of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), which subsequently activates protein kinase D1 (PKD1). Through phosphorylating the C-terminals of the NMDAR GluN2 subunits, PKD1 down-regulates the activity of remaining (non-internalized) surface NMDARs. The knockdown of PKD1 does not affect the DHPG-induced inhibition of AMPA receptor-mediated miniature excitatory post-synaptic currents (mEPSCs) but prevents the DHPG-induced inhibition of NMDAR-mediated mEPSCs in vitro. Thus, we investigated the in vivo effects of bilateral infusions of DHPG into the hippocampal CA1 area of rats in the Morris water maze (MWM) and the novel object discrimination (NOD) tests. METHODS: A total of 300 adult male Sprague Dawley rats (250-280 g) were used for behavioral tests. One hundred ninety four were used in MWM test and the other 106 rats in the NOD test. Following one week of habituation to the vivarium, rats were bilaterally implanted under deep anesthesia with cannulas aimed at the CA1 area of the hippocampus (CA1 coordinates in mm from Bregma: AP -3.14; lateral +/-2; DV -3.0). Through implanted cannulas artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF), the group1 mGluR antagonist 6-Methyl-2-(phenylethynyl)pyridine (MPEP), the dynamin-dependent internalization inhibitor Dynasore, or the PKD1 inhibitor CID755673 were infused into the bilateral hippocampal CA1 areas (2 μL per side, over 5 min). The effects of these infusions and the effects of PKD1 knockdown were examined in MWM or NOD test. RESULTS: DHPG infusion increased the latency to reach the platform in the MWM test and reduced the preference for the novel object in the NOD task. We found that the DHPG effects were dose-dependent and could be maintained for up to 2 days. Notably, these effects could be prevented by pre-infusion of the group1 mGluR antagonist MPEP, the dynamin-dependent internalization inhibitor Dynasore, the PKD1 inhibitor CID755673, or by PKD1 knockdown in the hippocampal CA1 area. CONCLUSION: Altogether, these findings provide direct evidence that PKD1-mediated signaling may play a critical role in the induction of learning and memory impairments by DHPG infusion into the hippocampal CA1 area.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→