MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388507716 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg9921

Immune activation state modulates infant engram expression across development

2023· article· en· W4388507716 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah D. Power, Erika Stewart, Louisa G. Zielke, Eric Patrick Byrne, Aaron Douglas, Clara Ortega‐de San Luis, Lydia Lynch, Tomás J. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersJacobs FoundationBoehringer Ingelheim FondsScience Foundation IrelandLister Institute of Preventive Medicine
KeywordsEngramNeuroscienceDentate gyrusAmnesiaForgettingMemory formationPsychologyOffspringImmunological memoryImmune systemHippocampusBiologyCognitive psychologyImmunologyImmunity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infantile amnesia is possibly the most ubiquitous form of memory loss in mammals. We investigated how memories are stored in the brain throughout development by integrating engram labeling technology with mouse models of infantile amnesia. Here, we found a phenomenon in which male offspring in maternal immune activation models of autism spectrum disorder do not experience infantile amnesia. Maternal immune activation altered engram ensemble size and dendritic spine plasticity. We rescued the same apparently forgotten infantile memories in neurotypical mice by optogenetically reactivating dentate gyrus engram cells labeled during complex experiences in infancy. Furthermore, we permanently reinstated lost infantile memories by artificially updating the memory engram, demonstrating that infantile amnesia is a reversible process. Our findings suggest not only that infantile amnesia is due to a reversible retrieval deficit in engram expression but also that immune activation during development modulates innate, and reversible, forgetting switches that determine whether infantile amnesia will occur.

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)0.001
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207