MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405847433 · doi:10.7554/elife.103676.1.sa3

eLife Assessment: Diverse calcium dynamics underlie place field formation in hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells

2024· peer-review· en· W4405847433 on OpenAlexaff
Adrien Peyrache

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHippocampal formationDynamics (music)CalciumPyramidal cellNeuroscienceField (mathematics)BiologyChemistryBiophysicsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every explored environment is represented in the hippocampus by the activity of distinct populations of pyramidal cells (PCs) that typically fire at specific locations called their place fields (PFs). PFs are constantly born even in familiar surroundings (during representational drift), and many rapidly emerge when the animal explores a new or altered environment (during global or partial remapping). Behavioral time scale synaptic plasticity (BTSP), a plasticity mechanism based on prolonged somatic bursts induced by dendritic Ca2+ plateau potentials, was recently proposed as the main cellular mechanism underlying new PF formations (PFF), but it is unknown whether burst-associated large somatic [Ca2+] transients are necessary and/or sufficient for PFF. To address this issue, here we performed in vivo two-photon [Ca2+] imaging of hippocampal CA1 PCs in head-restrained mice to investigate somatic [Ca2+] dynamics underlying PFFs in familiar and novel virtual environments. Our results demonstrate that although many PFs are formed by BTSP-like events, PFs also frequently emerge with initial [Ca2+] dynamics that do not match any of the characteristics of BTSP. BTSP and non-BTSP-like new PFFs occur spontaneously in familiar environments, during neuronal representational switches and instantaneously in new environments. Our data also reveal that solitary [Ca2+] transients that exceed in amplitude those evoking BTSP-like PFFs frequently occur without inducing PFs, demonstrating that large [Ca2+] transients per se are not sufficient for PFF.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.007

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→