Electroconvulsive Shock, but Not Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Transiently Elevates Cell Proliferation in the Adult Mouse Hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippocampal plasticity is hypothesized to play a role in the etiopathogenesis of depression and the antidepressant effect of medications. One form of plasticity that is unique to the hippocampus and is involved in depression-related behaviors in animal models is adult neurogenesis. While chronic electroconvulsive shock (ECS) strongly promotes neurogenesis, less is known about its acute effects and little is known about the neurogenic effects of other forms of stimulation therapy, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Here, we investigated the time course of acute ECS and rTMS effects on markers of cell proliferation and neurogenesis in the adult hippocampus. Mice were subjected to a single session of ECS, 10 Hz rTMS (10-rTMS), or intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS). Mice in both TMS groups were injected with BrdU 2 days before stimulation to label immature cells. One, 3, or 7 days later, hippocampi were collected and immunostained for BrdU + cells, actively proliferating PCNA + cells, and immature DCX + neurons. Following ECS, mice displayed a transient increase in cell proliferation at 3 days post-stimulation. At 7 days post-stimulation there was an elevation in the number of proliferating neuronal precursor cells (PCNA + DCX +), specifically in the ventral hippocampus. iTBS and rTMS did not alter the number of BrdU + cells, proliferating cells, or immature neurons at any of the post-stimulation time points. Our results suggest that neurostimulation treatments exert different effects on hippocampal neurogenesis, where ECS may have greater neurogenic potential than iTBS and 10-rTMS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".