MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311677199 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111787

High synaptic threshold for dendritic NMDA spike generation in human layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons

2022· article· en· W4311677199 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Testa-Silva, Marius Rosier, Suraj Honnuraiah, Robertas Guzulaitis, Ana Morello Megias, Chris French, James King, Katharine J. Drummond, Lucy M. Palmer, Greg J. Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersAustralian Research CouncilSylvia and Charles Viertel Charitable Foundation
KeywordsNMDA receptorNeuroscienceDendritic spikeGlutamate receptorDendrite (mathematics)BiologyReceptorExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons receive synaptic input primarily onto their dendrites. While we know much about the electrical properties of dendrites in rodents, we have only just started to describe their properties in the human brain. Here, we investigate the capacity of human dendrites to generate NMDA-receptor-dependent spikes (NMDA spikes). Using dendritic glutamate iontophoresis, as well as local dendritic synaptic stimulation, we find that human layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons can generate dendritic NMDA spikes. The capacity to evoke NMDA spikes in human neurons, however, was significantly reduced compared with that in rodents. Simulations in morphologically realistic and simplified models indicated that human neurons have a higher synaptic threshold for NMDA spike generation primarily due to the wider diameter of their dendrites. In summary, we find reduced NMDA spike generation in human compared with rodent layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons and provide evidence that this is due to the wider diameter of human dendrites.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207