MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400033813 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adl0030

KIBRA anchoring the action of PKMζ maintains the persistence of memory

2024· article· en· W4400033813 on OpenAlexaff
Panayiotis Tsokas, Changchi Hsieh, Rafael E. Flores‐Obando, Matteo Bernabo, Andrew Tcherepanov, A. Iván Hernández, Christian Thomas, Peter J. Bergold, James E. Cottrell, Joachim Kremerskothen, Harel Z. Shouval, Karim Nader, André A. Fenton, Todd Charlton Sacktor

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsLong-term potentiationNeurosciencePostsynaptic potentialProtein kinase ANeurotransmissionPostsynaptic densityBiologyExcitatory postsynaptic potentialCell biologyKinaseReceptorBiochemistryInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can short-lived molecules selectively maintain the potentiation of activated synapses to sustain long-term memory? Here, we find kidney and brain expressed adaptor protein (KIBRA), a postsynaptic scaffolding protein genetically linked to human memory performance, complexes with protein kinase Mzeta (PKMζ), anchoring the kinase's potentiating action to maintain late-phase long-term potentiation (late-LTP) at activated synapses. Two structurally distinct antagonists of KIBRA-PKMζ dimerization disrupt established late-LTP and long-term spatial memory, yet neither measurably affects basal synaptic transmission. Neither antagonist affects PKMζ-independent LTP or memory that are maintained by compensating PKCs in ζ-knockout mice; thus, both agents require PKMζ for their effect. KIBRA-PKMζ complexes maintain 1-month-old memory despite PKMζ turnover. Therefore, it is not PKMζ alone, nor KIBRA alone, but the continual interaction between the two that maintains late-LTP and long-term memory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207