MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886906586 · doi:10.1152/jn.00340.2018

Ionic mechanisms underlying tonic and burst firing behavior in subfornical organ neurons: a combined experimental and modeling study

2018· article· en· W2886906586 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Medlock, Lauren Shute, Mark Fry, Dominic Standage, Alastair V. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSubfornical organNeuroscienceBurstingTonic (physiology)ElectrophysiologyNeuronBiologyReceptorAngiotensin II

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subfornical organ (SFO) neurons exhibit heterogeneity in current expression and spiking behavior, where the two major spiking phenotypes appear as tonic and burst firing. Insight into the mechanisms behind this heterogeneity is critical for understanding how the SFO, a sensory circumventricular organ, integrates and selectively influences physiological function. To integrate efficient methods for studying this heterogeneity, we built a single-compartment, Hodgkin-Huxley-type model of an SFO neuron that is parameterized by SFO-specific in vitro patch-clamp data. The model accounts for the membrane potential distribution and spike train variability of both tonic and burst firing SFO neurons. Analysis of model dynamics confirms that a persistent Na+ and Ca2+ currents are required for burst initiation and maintenance and suggests that a slow-activating K+ current may be responsible for burst termination in SFO neurons. Additionally, the model suggests that heterogeneity in current expression and subsequent influence on spike afterpotential underlie the behavioral differences between tonic and burst firing SFO neurons. Future use of this model in coordination with single neuron patch-clamp electrophysiology provides a platform for explaining and predicting the response of SFO neurons to various combinations of circulating signals, thus elucidating the mechanisms underlying physiological signal integration within the SFO. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Our understanding of how the subfornical organ (SFO) selectively influences autonomic nervous system function remains incomplete but theoretically results from the electrical responses of SFO neurons to physiologically important signals. We have built a computational model of SFO neurons, derived from and supported by experimental data, which explains how SFO neurons produce different electrical patterns. The model provides an efficient system to theoretically and experimentally explore how changes in the essential features of SFO neurons affect their electrical activity.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207