MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382937407 · doi:10.1186/s13041-023-01042-w

mTORC1-mediated acquisition of reward-related representations by hippocampal somatostatin interneurons

2023· article· en· W4382937407 on OpenAlexafffund
François-Xavier Michon, Isabel Laplante, Anthony Bosson, Richard Robitaille, Jean‐Claude Lacaille

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Brain · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCanadian Sleep & Circadian Network
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeuroscienceHippocampal formationmTORC1Long-term potentiationSomatostatinPsychologySynaptic plasticityHippocampusInterneuronInhibitory postsynaptic potentialBiologySignal transductionCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plasticity of principal cells and inhibitory interneurons underlies hippocampal memory. Bidirectional modulation of somatostatin cell mTORC1 activity, a crucial translational control mechanism in synaptic plasticity, causes parallel changes in hippocampal CA1 somatostatin interneuron (SOM-IN) long-term potentiation and hippocampus-dependent memory, indicating a key role in learning. However, SOM-IN activity changes and behavioral correlates during learning, and the role of mTORC1 in these processes, remain ill-defined. To address these questions, we used two-photon Ca 2+ imaging from SOM-INs during a virtual reality goal-directed spatial memory task in head-fixed control mice (SOM-IRES-Cre mice) or in mice with conditional knockout of Rptor (SOM-Rptor-KO mice) to block mTORC1 activity in SOM-INs. We found that control mice learn the task, but SOM-Raptor-KO mice exhibit a deficit. Also, SOM-IN Ca 2+ activity became increasingly related to reward during learning in control mice but not in SOM-Rptor-KO mice. Four types of SOM-IN activity patterns related to reward location were observed, “reward off sustained”, “reward off transient”, “reward on sustained” and “reward on transient”, and these responses showed reorganization after reward relocation in control but not SOM-Rptor-KO mice. Thus, SOM-INs develop mTORC1-dependent reward- related activity during learning. This coding may bi-directionally interact with pyramidal cells and other structures to represent and consolidate reward location.

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)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BrainSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207