Net decrease in spine-surface GluA1-containing AMPA receptors after post-learning sleep in the adult mouse cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms by which sleep benefits learning and memory remain unclear. Sleep may further strengthen the synapses potentiated by learning or promote broad synaptic weakening while protecting the newly potentiated synapses. We tested these ideas by combining a motor task whose consolidation is sleep-dependent, a marker of synaptic AMPA receptor plasticity, and repeated two-photon imaging to track hundreds of spines in vivo with single spine resolution. In mouse motor cortex, sleep leads to an overall net decrease in spine-surface GluA1-containing AMPA receptors, both before and after learning. Molecular changes in single spines during post-learning sleep are correlated with changes in performance after sleep. The spines in which learning leads to the largest increase in GluA1 expression have a relative advantage after post-learning sleep compared to sleep deprivation, because sleep weakens all remaining spines. These results are obtained in adult mice, showing that sleep-dependent synaptic down-selection also benefits the mature brain.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".