MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184688772 · doi:10.1096/fj.202100201rr

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

2021· article· en· W3184688772 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

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité LavalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNovo Nordisk FondenKrembil FoundationLundbeckfondenFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsDopaminergicNeuroscienceDopamineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chemical neurotransmission typically occurs through synapses. Previous ultrastructural examinations of monoamine neuron axon terminals often failed to identify a pre‐ and postsynaptic coupling, leading to the concept of “volume” transmission. Whether this results from intrinsic properties of these neurons remains undefined. We find that dopaminergic neurons in vitro establish a distinctive axonal arbor compared to glutamatergic or GABAergic neurons in both size and propensity of terminals to avoid direct contact with target neurons. While most dopaminergic varicosities are active and contain exocytosis proteins like synaptotagmin 1, only ~20% of these are synaptic. The active zone protein bassoon was found to be enriched in dopaminergic terminals that are in proximity to a target cell. Finally, we found that the proteins neurexin‐1α SS4− and neuroligin‐1 A+B play a critical role in the formation of synapses by dopamine (DA) neurons. Our findings suggest that DA neurons are endowed with a distinctive developmental connectivity program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations44
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207