MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312140907 · doi:10.1111/acel.13761

<scp>P2Y<sub>6</sub></scp> receptor‐dependent microglial phagocytosis of synapses mediates synaptic and memory loss in aging

2022· article· en· W4312140907 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jacob M. Dundee, Mar Puigdellívol, Richard Butler, Thomas O. J. Cockram, Guy C. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Cell · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaLifeArcEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsPhagocytosisMicrogliaInternalizationBiologyHippocampal formationNeuroscienceCell biologyReceptorImmunologyBiochemistryInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aging causes loss of brain synapses and memory, and microglial phagocytosis of synapses may contribute to this loss. Stressed neurons can release the nucleotide UTP, which is rapidly converted into UDP, that in turn activates the P2Y 6 receptor (P2Y 6 R) on the surface of microglia, inducing microglial phagocytosis of neurons. However, whether the activation of P2Y 6 R affects microglial phagocytosis of synapses is unknown. We show here that inactivation of P2Y 6 R decreases microglial phagocytosis of isolated synapses (synaptosomes) and synaptic loss in neuronal–glial co‐cultures. In vivo, wild‐type mice aged from 4 to 17 months exhibited reduced synaptic density in cortical and hippocampal regions, which correlated with increased internalization of synaptic material within microglia. However, this aging‐induced synaptic loss and internalization were absent in P2Y 6 R knockout mice, and these mice also lacked any aging‐induced memory loss. Thus, P2Y 6 R appears to mediate aging‐induced loss of synapses and memory by increasing microglial phagocytosis of synapses. Consequently, blocking P2Y 6 R has the potential to prevent age‐associated memory impairment.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging CellSame topicNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration MechanismsFrench-language works237,207