GLP‐1 neurons form a local synaptic circuit within the rodent nucleus of the solitary tract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glutamatergic neurons that express pre‐proglucagon (PPG) and are immunopositive (+) for glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (i.e., GLP‐1+ neurons) are located within the caudal nucleus of the solitary tract (cNTS) and medullary reticular formation in rats and mice. GLP‐1 neurons give rise to an extensive central network in which GLP‐1 receptor (GLP‐1R) signaling suppresses food intake, attenuates rewarding, increases avoidance, and stimulates stress responses, partly via GLP‐1R signaling within the cNTS. In mice, noradrenergic (A2) cNTS neurons express GLP‐1R, whereas PPG neurons do not. In this study, confocal microscopy in rats confirmed that prolactin‐releasing peptide (PrRP)+ A2 neurons are closely apposed by GLP‐1+ axonal varicosities. Surprisingly, GLP‐1+ appositions were also observed on dendrites of PPG/GLP‐1+ neurons in both species, and electron microscopy in rats revealed that GLP‐1+ boutons form asymmetric synaptic contacts with GLP‐1+ dendrites. However, RNAscope confirmed that rat GLP‐1 neurons do not express GLP‐1R mRNA. Similarly, Ca 2+ imaging of somatic and dendritic responses in mouse ex vivo slices confirmed that PPG neurons do not respond directly to GLP‐1, and a mouse crossbreeding strategy revealed that <1% of PPG neurons co‐express GLP‐1R. Collectively, these data suggest that GLP‐1R signaling pathways modulate the activity of PrRP+ A2 neurons, and also reveal a local “feed‐forward” synaptic network among GLP‐1 neurons that apparently does not use GLP‐1R signaling. This local GLP‐1 network may instead use glutamatergic signaling to facilitate dynamic and potentially selective recruitment of GLP‐1 neural populations that shape behavioral and physiological responses to internal and external challenges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".