Difference in axon diameter and myelin thickness between excitatory and inhibitory callosally projecting axons in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronization of network oscillation in spatially distant cortical areas is essential for normal brain activity. Precision in synchronization between hemispheres depends on the axonal conduction velocity, which is determined by physical parameters of the axons involved, including diameter, and extent of myelination. To compare these parameters in long-projecting excitatory and inhibitory axons in the corpus callosum, we used genetically modified mice and virus tracing to separately label CaMKIIα expressing excitatory and GABAergic inhibitory axons. Using electron microscopy analysis, we revealed that (i) the axon diameters of excitatory fibers (myelinated axons) are significantly larger than those of nonmyelinated excitatory axons; (ii) the diameters of bare axons of excitatory myelinated fibers are significantly larger than those of their inhibitory counterparts; and (iii) myelinated excitatory fibers are significantly larger than myelinated inhibitory fibers. Also, the thickness of myelin ensheathing inhibitory axons is significantly greater than for excitatory axons, with the ultrastructure of the myelin around excitatory and inhibitory fibers also differing. We generated a computational model to investigate the functional consequences of these parameter divergences. Our simulations indicate that impulses through inhibitory and excitatory myelinated fibers reach the target almost simultaneously, whereas action potentials conducted by nonmyelinated axons reach target cells with considerable delay.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".