Neuronal communication mediated by gap junctions that form electrical synapses composed of connexin36 in the hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Granule cells in the hippocampus project axons to hippocampal CA3 pyramidal cells where they form large mossy fiber terminals. We have reported the presence of gap junction protein connexin36 (Cx36) specifically in the stratum lucidum of rat ventral hippocampus, thus creating morphologically mixed synapses that have the potential for dual chemical/electrical transmission capabilities. There is some electrophysiological evidence that these terminals have a gap junction-mediated electrical transmission component under some conditions. Here, we used various approaches to further characterize molecular and electrophysiological relationships between the Cx36-containing gap junctions at mossy fiber terminals and their postsynaptic elements. In the CA3b and CA3c hippocampal regions, the vast majority of these terminals, identified by their selective expression of vesicular zinc transporter-3 (ZnT3), displayed multiple, fine immunofluorescent Cx36-puncta representing gap junctions, which were absent at mossy fiber terminals in the dorsal hippocampus. These puncta were invariably found in close proximity to the protein constituents of adherens junctions (i.e., N-cadherin and nectin-1) that are a structural hallmark of mossy fiber terminals that contact dendritic shafts of CA3 pyramidal cells, thus indicating the loci of gap junctions at these contacts. Cx36-puncta were also associated with adherens junctions at mixed synapses in other regions of the CNS. Electrophysiologically induced long-term potentiation of field responses evoked by mossy fiber stimulation was greater in the ventral than dorsal hippocampus, and it remains to be determined whether the electrical component of transmission at mossy fiber terminals contributes to the enhancement of these responses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".