Glucocorticoid and β‐adrenergic regulation of hippocampal dendritic spines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucocorticoid hormones are particularly potent with respect to enhancing memory formation. Notably, this occurs in close synergy with arousal (i.e., when norepinephrine levels are enhanced). In the present study, we examined whether glucocorticoid and norepinephrine hormones regulate the number of spines in hippocampal primary neurons. We report that brief administration of corticosterone or the β-adrenergic receptor agonist isoproterenol alone increases spine number. This effect becomes particularly prominent when corticosterone and isoproterenol are administered together. In parallel, corticosterone and isoproterenol alone increased the amplitude of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents, an effect that is not amplified when both hormones are administered together. The effects of co-application of corticosterone and isoproterenol on spines could be prevented by blocking the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist RU486. Taken together, both corticosterone and β-adrenergic receptor activation increase spine number, and they exert additive effects on spine number for which activation of glucocorticoid receptors is permissive.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".