Optogenetic stimulation of medial amygdala GABA neurons with kinetically different channelrhodopsin variants yield opposite behavioral outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Optogenetic manipulation of genetically-specified neuron populations has become a key tool in circuit neuroscience. The medial amygdala (MeA) receives pheromone information about conspecifics and has crucial functions in social behaviors; interestingly, this amygdalar structure contains a majority of GABAergic projection neurons. A previous study showed that optogenetic activation of MeA GABA neurons with channelrhodopsin-2 H134R (ChR2) strongly enhanced inter-male aggression (Hong et al. 2014, Cell). When we attempted to reproduce these findings, accidentally using a faster channelrhodopsin variant (channelrhodopsin-2 H134R,E123T or ChETA), we found the opposite results. We therefore systematically compared the behavioral outcome of optogenetic stimulation of MeApd GABA neurons with ChETA versus ChR2, employing two widely used AAV serotypes. This revealed that optogenetic stimulation with ChETA suppressed aggression, whereas optogenetic stimulation with ChR2 increased aggression. Recordings of membrane potential changes following optogenetic stimulation with ChETA versus ChR2 revealed larger plateau depolarizations, smaller action potential amplitudes, and larger local inhibition of neighboring inhibitory neurons with ChR2 as compared to ChETA. Our study shows that channelrhodopsin variants have to be chosen with care for in-vivo optogenetic experiments. Furthermore, the role of MeApd GABA neurons in aggression control should be re- evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".