MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412552450 · doi:10.1038/s41593-025-02016-y

Voltage imaging reveals hippocampal inhibitory dynamics shaping pyramidal memory-encoding sequences

2025· article· en· W4412552450 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiannis Taxidis, Blake Madruga, Karen Safaryan, Conor C. Dorian, Maxwell D Melin, Zoë Day, Michael Z. Lin, Peyman Golshani

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentAzrieli FoundationU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsNeuroscienceParvalbuminInhibitory postsynaptic potentialOptogeneticsOdorHippocampal formationPyramidal cellElectrophysiologyHyperpolarization (physics)BiologyPsychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hippocampal spiking sequences encode and link behaviorally relevant information across time. How inhibition sculpts these sequences remains unclear. We performed longitudinal voltage imaging of CA1 parvalbumin- and somatostatin-expressing interneurons in mice performing an odor-cued working memory task. Unlike pyramidal odor-specific sequences that encode odor and time throughout a delay period, interneurons encoded odor delivery, but not odor identity or delay time. Odor-triggered inhibition was exerted by stable numbers of interneurons across days, with constant cell turnover, independent of task training. At odor onset, brief spiking of parvalbumin interneurons was followed by widespread hyperpolarization and synchronized theta-paced rebound spiking across interneurons. Electrophysiology, optogenetics and calcium imaging corroborated that parvalbumin interneurons silenced most pyramidal cells during odor delivery, whereas somatostatin interneurons suppressed other interneurons. The few odor-selective pyramidal cells spiked together with interneuronal post-hyperpolarization rebound. Collectively, inhibition increases the signal-to-noise ratio of pyramidal cue representations, enabling efficient encoding of memory-relevant information.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207