MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410051112 · doi:10.1177/17448069251335500

Characterization of excitatory synaptic transmission in the retrosplenial cortex of adult mice

2025· article· en· W4410051112 on OpenAlexaff
Jinjin Wan, Yujie Ma, Xuanying Chen, Wucheng Tao, Shun Hao, Wujun Geng, Yili Wu, Min Zhuo

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Pain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcitatory postsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceNeurotransmissionAMPA receptorInhibitory postsynaptic potentialRetrosplenial cortexSynaptic plasticityGlutamatergicChemistryGlutamate receptorBiologyCortex (anatomy)ReceptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The retrosplenial cortex (RSC) plays an important role in navigation, memory and pain. However, there are few studies on excitatory synaptic transmission in the RSC. Here, we used a multi-electrode array recording system (MED64) to study the characteristics of excitatory synaptic transmission in the RSC and the contribution of different types of voltage-gated Ca 2+ channels (VGCCs) in excitatory synaptic transmission. We found that glutamate is the major excitatory transmitter for RSC, and postsynaptic alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) receptors contribute to excitatory synaptic transmission. We also found that the N-type calcium channel blocker ω-conotoxin GVIA (ω-Ctx GVIA) had an inhibitory effect on basal synaptic transmission. The inhibitory effect was not consistent across channels, suggesting the actions effect of N-type VGCCs in RSC was inhomogeneous in spatial distribution. Our findings provide strong evidence that excitatory synaptic transmission in the RSC is mainly mediated by AMPA receptors and that N-type VGCCs mediate fast synaptic transmission in the RSC of adult mice.

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 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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