MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991845664

Intrinsic electrical activity in gonadotropin-releasing hormone neurons: a modelling study

2016· dissertation· en· W6991845664 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormones
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurstingBifurcationPulsatile flowElectrophysiologyNeuronDiencephalonMathematical modelElectrical network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) neurons are neurosecretory cells of the vertebrate diencephalon that regulate fertility through pulsatile secretion of GnRH into the median eminence. The physiological mechanism for pulsatile release of GnRH is hypothesized to depend on the intrinsic electrical activity of these cells, which in mice includes two endogenous modes of action potential burst firing; namely parabolic and irregular bursting. In this thesis, we develop a stochastic Hodgkin-Huxley-like model of the electrical activity in a single GnRH neuron and use it to (i) predict the contributions of specific ionic currents in the generation of parabolic and irregular bursting, and (ii) investigate the mathematical mechanisms underlying bursting behaviour. As part of the model development process, we obtain new data-based submodels for several ionic currents that have been pharmacologically isolated in GnRH neurons. Through numerical simulations, we find that the model generates parabolic and irregular bursting solutions that agree qualitatively with electrophysiological recordings. We show that the type of bursting generated by the model can be toggled by changes in the conductances of certain ionic currents, notably those of a slow inward Ca2+current and a Ca2+-activated K+ current. The parabolic and irregular bursting models are analyzed using numerical bifurcation techniques, revealing that the two models actually share a common topological structure in their fast subsystems. Despite this mathematical similarity, the two models differ in one major aspect: parabolic bursting is not dependent on neuronal noise, whereas irregular bursting relies on slow stochastic fluctuations that push the system past the threshold for firing. Lastly, we demonstrate that a canonical model for bursting, where spiking is initiated and terminated through passage of a saddle-node on invariant circle bifurcation in the fast subsystem, can also produce both types of bursting.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicHypothalamic control of reproductive hormonesFrench-language works237,207