MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024282912 · doi:10.1101/2020.05.11.088351

Dopaminergic neurons establish a distinctive axonal arbor with a majority of non-synaptic terminals

2020· preprint· en· W3024282912 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Ducrot, Marie-Josée Bourque, Constantin V. L. Delmas, Anne‐Sophie Racine, Dainelys Guadarrama Bello, Benoît Delignat‐Lavaud, Matthew D. Lycas, Aurélie Fallon, Charlotte Michaud‐Tardif, Samuel Burke, Freja Herborg, Ulrik Gether, Antonio Nanci, Hideto Takahashi, Martin Parent, Louis‐Éric Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéParkinson CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLundbeckfondenH. Lundbeck A/SUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsNeuroscienceDopaminergicPostsynaptic potentialGlutamatergicDopamineAxonExcitatory postsynaptic potentialSynaptic pharmacologyNeurotransmissionBiologySynapseGABAergicActive zoneExcitatory synapseInhibitory postsynaptic potentialSynaptic fatigueSynaptic vesicleGlutamate receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Chemical neurotransmission in the brain typically occurs through synapses, which are structurally and functionally defined as sites of close apposition between an axon terminal and a postsynaptic domain. Ultrastructural examinations of axon terminals established by monoamine neurons in the brain often failed to identify a similar tight pre- and postsynaptic coupling, giving rise to the concept of “diffuse” or “volume” transmission. Whether this results from intrinsic properties of such modulatory neurons remains undefined. Using an efficient co-culture model, we find that dopaminergic neurons establish an axonal arbor that is distinctive compared to glutamatergic or GABAergic neurons in both size and propensity of terminals to avoid direct contact with target neurons. Furthermore, while most dopaminergic varicosities express key proteins involved in exocytosis such as synaptotagmin 1, only ~20% of these are synaptic. The active zone protein bassoon was found to be enriched in a subset of dopaminergic terminals that are in proximity to a target cell. Irrespective of their structure, a majority of dopaminergic terminals were found to be active. Finally, we found that the presynaptic protein Nrxn-1α SS4- and the postsynaptic protein NL-1 AB , two major components involved in excitatory synapse formation, play a critical role in the formation of synapses by dopamine neurons. Taken together, our findings support the idea that dopamine neurons in the brain are endowed with a distinctive developmental program that leads them to adopt a fundamentally different mode of connectivity, compared to glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons involved in fast point-to-point signaling. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons regulate circuits controlling movement, motivation, and learning. The axonal connectivity of DA neurons is intriguing due to its hyperdense nature, with a particularly large number of release sites, most of which not adopting a classical synaptic structure. In this study, we provide new evidence highlighting the unique ability of DA neurons to establish a large and heterogeneous axonal arbor with terminals that, in striking contrast with glutamate and GABA neurons, actively avoid contact with the target cells. The majority of synaptic and non-synaptic terminals express proteins for exocytosis and are active. Finally, our finding suggests that, NL-1 A+B and Nrxn-1α SS4- , play a critical role in the formation of synapses by DA neurons.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→