Additional file 1 of mTORC1-mediated acquisition of reward-related representations by hippocampal somatostatin interneurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Figure S1. Inhibition of mTORC1 signaling in SOM-INs in SOM-Rptor-KO mice and other behavioral measures during learning. A Representative confocal immunofluorescence labelling of S6 phosphorylation in EYFP-expressing SOM-INs. Repeated mGluR1 stimulation increased p-S6 in SOM-INs relative to sham-treatment in slices from control SOM-IRES-Cre mice but not in slices from SOM-Rptor-KO mice. Scale bar: 20 µm. B Quantification of p-S6 immunofluorescence showing reduced basal level of p-S6 in SOM-INs of SOM-Rptor-KO mice relative to control SOM-IRES-Cre mice suggesting deficit of constitutive mTORC1 activity. C Quantification of evoked p-S6 showing increased p-S6 in SOM-INs after repeated mGluR1 stimulation relative to sham treatment of SOM-IRES-Cre mice but not in SOM-Rptor-KO mice confirming a deficit in mTORC1 signaling in SOM-INs of SOM-Rptor-KO mice. D, E Summary plots of changes over training sessions in SOM-IRES-Cre and SOM-Rptor-KO mice showing similar reduction in trial duration over training in both mice, and increase in percentage time spent in reward zone over training only in control SOM-IRES-Cre mice, indicative of a spatial learning deficit in SOM-Rptor-KO mice. F Summary plot of learning index measured for the same number of trials for each animal in the last training session, indicating a learning deficit in the SOM-Rptor-KO relative to control mice when trial numbers are constant. Details of statistical tests provided in Additional file 5: Table S1. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001, ns not significant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.901 | 0.241 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".