MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394758735 · doi:10.1038/s41380-024-02546-0

Dentate gyrus is needed for memory retrieval

2024· article· en· W4394758735 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandro Carretero‐Guillén, Mario Treviño, María Ángeles Gómez‐Climent, Godwin Dogbevia, Ilaria Bertocchi, Rolf Sprengel, Matthew E. Larkum, Andreas Vlachos, Agnès Gruart, José M. Delgado‐García, Mazahir T. Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Psychiatry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónJunta de AndalucíaEuropean Regional Development FundMax-Planck-GesellschaftIngeborg Ständer-StiftungMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónFritz Thyssen Stiftung
KeywordsDentate gyrusNeurosciencePsychologyHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hippocampus is crucial for acquiring and retrieving episodic and contextual memories. In previous studies, the inactivation of dentate gyrus (DG) neurons by chemogenetic- and optogenetic-mediated hyperpolarization led to opposing conclusions about DG's role in memory retrieval. One study used Designer Receptors Exclusively Activated by Designer Drugs (DREADD)-mediated clozapine N-oxide (CNO)-induced hyperpolarization and reported that the previously formed memory was erased, thus concluding that denate gyrus is needed for memory maintenance. The other study used optogenetic with halorhodopsin induced hyperpolarization and reported and dentate gyrus is needed for memory retrieval. We hypothesized that this apparent discrepancy could be due to the length of hyperpolarization in previous studies; minutes by optogenetics and several hours by DREADD/CNO. Since hyperpolarization interferes with anterograde and retrograde neuronal signaling, it is possible that the memory engram in the dentate gyrus and the entorhinal to hippocampus trisynaptic circuit was erased by long-term, but not with short-term hyperpolarization. We developed and applied an advanced chemogenetic technology to selectively silence synaptic output by blocking neurotransmitter release without hyperpolarizing DG neurons to explore this apparent discrepancy. We performed in vivo electrophysiology during trace eyeblink in a rabbit model of associative learning. Our work shows that the DG output is required for memory retrieval. Based on previous and recent findings, we propose that the actively functional anterograde and retrograde neuronal signaling is necessary to preserve synaptic memory engrams along the entorhinal cortex to the hippocampal trisynaptic circuit.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PsychiatrySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207