G protein‐coupled estrogen receptor‐1 enhances excitatory synaptic responses in the entorhinal cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activation of estrogen receptors is thought to modulate cognitive function in the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and striatum by affecting both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission. The entorhinal cortex is a major source of cortical sensory and associational input to the hippocampus, but it is unclear whether either estrogens or progestogens may modulate cognitive function through effects on synaptic transmission in the entorhinal cortex. This study assessed the effects of the brief application of either 17-β estradiol (E2) or progesterone on excitatory glutamatergic synaptic transmission in the female rat entorhinal cortex in vitro. Rats were ovariectomized on postnatal day (PD) 63 and also received subdermal E2 implants to maintain constant low levels of circulating E2 on par with estrus. Electrophysiological recordings from brain slices were obtained between PD70 and PD86, and field excitatory postsynaptic potentials (fEPSPs) reflecting the activation of the superficial layers of the entorhinal cortex were evoked by the stimulation of layer I afferents. The application of E2 (10 nM) for 20 min resulted in a small increase in the amplitude of fEPSPs that reversed during the 30-min washout period. The application of the ERα agonist propylpyrazoletriol (PPT) (100 nM) or the β agonist DPN (1 μM) did not significantly affect synaptic responses. However, the application of the G protein-coupled estrogen receptor-1 (GPER1) agonist G1 (100 nM) induced a reversible increase in fEPSP amplitude similar to that induced by E2. Furthermore, the potentiation of responses induced by G1 was blocked by the GPER1 antagonist G15 (1 μM). Application of progesterone (100 nM) or its metabolite allopregnanolone (1 μM) did not significantly affect synaptic responses. The potentiation of synaptic transmission in the entorhinal cortex induced by the activation of GPER1 receptors may contribute to the modulation of cognitive function in female rats.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".