GABAergic Interneurons in the Neocortex: From Cellular Properties to Circuits

In the paper

“Extracellular recordings in the anterior cingulate cortex of mice performing a reward foraging task showed that a subgroup of optogenetically-identified Sst INs with narrow spikes fired preferentially at reward approach, whereas PV INs showed an increase firing when the mouse was leaving the reward location that was correlated with stay duration in the reward zone (Kvitsiani et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites Kvitsiani et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Although they represent a minority of all cortical neurons (10–15% in rodents; (Meyer et al., 2011)”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (page not provided) report that GABAergic neurons make up 11–13% of neurons on average in the cortical columns studied. That supports the cited percentage, but the study measured rat somatosensory cortex, not all cortical regions or rodents generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Meyer et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“an effort to come to a consensus on IN classification in the cerebral cortex that took place a few years ago in Petilla de Aragon, the birthplace of Ramon y Cajal, did not succeed in accomplishing this goal. Instead, we produced a document discussing the features that can be a basis for distinguishing among IN subtypes”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract says the Petilla de Aragón meeting produced standardized terminology for features that differentiate cortical GABAergic interneurons, as a step toward a future classification. Box 3 says the group considered defining interneuron classes but reached a strong consensus that doing so was premature; instead, it identified descriptors for a future multidimensional classification. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Ascoli et al., 2008 source

In the paper

“GABAergic interneuron subtypes also vary in their response to neuromodulators such as acetylcholine (Ach), serotonin (5-HT), noradrenaline and dopamine, which profoundly affect the function of neocortical circuits and are responsible for dynamic changes associated with different brain states and behavioral contexts”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The section “Differential monoaminergic and cholinergic modulation among GABAergic cell types” reports differing subtype responses to noradrenaline and acetylcholine and describes subtype-specific serotonin receptor expression. It says dopamine is considered to affect cortical activity, but only suggests that other monoaminergic inputs may regulate GABAergic cell types differentially; it does not establish differing subtype responses to dopamine. The introduction links noradrenaline and acetylcholine to arousal and cortical activation, but does not establish the full four-modulator claim about brain-state and behavioral-context dynamics. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  cites Kawaguchi and Shindou, 1998 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Munoz and Rudy, 2014

In the paper

“morphological data has been for the most part obtained from brain slices and therefore only partial information is generally available”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Abstract says much experimental neuroscience uses brain-tissue sections, and the Results explain that slicing can sever neuronal branches and connections. But the paper does not establish that most morphological data on interneurons come from slices or are generally incomplete; its Abstract and Materials and Methods say its inhibitory basket-cell arbors were reconstructed in their entirety. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  cites Stepanyants et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“INs have also been implicated in other diseases including schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and autism”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The section “Alterations in cortical PV neurons in schizophrenia” links changes in inhibitory neurons to schizophrenia. The passages from our copy do not address anxiety disorders or autism, so the citation supports only one of the three conditions named. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Lewis, 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Marin, 2012 source

In the paper

“Membrane resistance lowest at the soma and proximal dendrites as compared to distal dendrites, helping the generation of brief EPSPs while facilitating fast propagation of EPSPs to the soma5.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The IPSP Time Course section (page unavailable) discusses dendritic filtering and says the extent to which IPSPs slow on their way to the soma remains uncertain. It does not state that membrane resistance is lower at the soma and proximal dendrites than distally, or that this gradient generates brief EPSPs and speeds their propagation. Searches for the resistance comparison and EPSP propagation found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites [5] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Output synapses rely exclusively on P/Q-type Ca2+ channels14–17, which have faster kinetics18 and mediate nanodomain coupling between Ca2+ influx and neurotransmitter release15,19.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The Results passage on postsynaptic Ca hotspots concerns calcium signals in FS-cell dendrites after thalamic input, not the channels at FS-cell output synapses. The Discussion passage on multivesicular release likewise does not identify P/Q-type channels, compare their kinetics, or describe nanodomain coupling. Searches for those terms found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  cites [14] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
• ?Could not verify

  The Discussion and the section on LRIP gating of CA1 input discuss interneuron inhibition and postsynaptic Ca2+ signals, not the channels at FS-cell output synapses. Searches for P/Q-type channels and nanodomain coupling found no passage addressing exclusive channel use, faster channel kinetics, or coupling to neurotransmitter release. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source

In the paper

“which is found in about 40 % of all 5HT3aR INs and is not expressed in PV or Sst neurons”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Neurochemical profile section reports that nearly all VIP-positive neurons express 5-HT3aR, that PV never colocalized with 5-HT3aR, and that fewer than 3% of 5-HT3aR neurons expressed SST. It does not give the claimed figure that VIP is found in about 40% of all 5-HT3aR interneurons; its near-absence finding for SST also does not establish an absolute exclusion. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Lee et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Expression of high levels of voltage-gated K+ channels with a depolarized activation voltage and fast deactivation rates of the Kv3 subfamily; channels specialized for rapid repolarization with little interference during the inter-spike interval.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The “Slice preparation and recording” section says FS cells fire high-frequency, narrow action potentials, but it does not identify the channels responsible. Searches for Kv3 channels, depolarized activation, fast deactivation, and inter-spike repolarization found no passage in our copy addressing the attributed mechanism; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  cites [9] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Could not verify

  Materials and Methods (Identification of interneuron subtypes; page unavailable) describes how fast-spiking cells were identified and reports their firing pattern. Searches for Kv3 channels, their activation and deactivation, and their role in repolarization found no passage in our copy addressing those claims. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites [10] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Could not verify

  The Firing pattern section describes fast-spiking cells as firing above 50 Hz with brief action potentials and fast afterhyperpolarizations (page unavailable). Searches for Kv3, depolarized activation, fast deactivation, and rapid repolarization found no passage in our copy connecting those channel properties to fast-spiking cells. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites [11] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“FS cell axons contain an excessively high density of Na+ channels and prominent expression of Kv3 channels12.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The Results section (‘Visual Responses of PV Cells Are Distinct from Those of Pyr Cells’; page unavailable) describes PV cells as consistent with the fast-spiking type, but does not address ion channels in their axons. Searches for axonal Na+ channel density and Kv3 expression found no passage supporting either part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)

  cites [12] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Low input resistance, and very fast time constant perhaps due in part to the developmentally-regulated expression of TASK-3 leak K+ channels3,4”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The passages on hilar interneuron connections and functional implications describe synaptic wiring, not the intrinsic properties of fast-spiking cells. Searches of our copy for TASK-3 leak K+ channels, low input resistance, and a fast time constant found no passage addressing the claim. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites [3] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Could not verify

  The 'Different size tuning of distinct neurons' section describes fast-spiking inhibitory neurons and the thin spikes of parvalbumin neurons, but does not report their input resistance or membrane time constant. Searches for TASK-3 and those electrical properties found no passage addressing developmentally regulated TASK-3 channels or the proposed explanation. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  cites [4] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“L4 and L5 non-Martinotti Sst INs typically have lower input resistance, brief spikes and fire at higher frequencies, resembling FS basket cells, but show much stronger firing frequency adaptation than these cells (Fanselow et al., 2008; Ma et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (page not available in our copy) report that GIN cells had a current–frequency gain similar to fast-spiking cells, could fire at about 50 Hz under injected current, and showed spike-frequency adaptation that fast-spiking cells did not. But the paper studies mainly layer 2/3 GIN cells, which the Discussion generally identifies as Martinotti cells. It does not establish the claimed profile for layer 4 and 5 non-Martinotti Sst cells or report their lower input resistance. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Fanselow et al., 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Ma et al., 2006
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2013

In the paper

“it has been recently suggested that this depends on the excitatory state of the postsynaptic cell”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion (‘A state-dependent function of ChCs’; page unavailable) says that whether chandelier cells excite postsynaptic neurons depends on the neurons’ membrane-potential trajectory and GABA reversal potential. It reports excitation when chandelier-cell input precedes depolarization, but inhibition when it occurs during a rising excitatory response, supporting the cited suggestion. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Woodruff et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“a few Sst cells in deep layers express nNOS (neuronal nitric oxide synthase) and are thought to have long-range projecting axons (Tamamaki and Tomioka, 2010)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  In “Cortico-Cortical GABAergic Projection Neurons are Positive for nNOS” (page not provided), the paper says that almost all GABAergic neurons labeled more than 1.5 mm from the injection site express somatostatin immunoreactivity and are found in the deepest neocortical layer, white matter, or layer I. It also reports nNOS expression in 71% of identified GABAergic projection neurons and estimates that these neurons are rare, supporting the citing sentence’s hedged description. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Tamamaki and Tomioka, 2010 source

In the paper

“All postsynaptic boutons of chandelier INs have been reported to target exclusively the axon initial segment of pyramidal cells (Howard et al., 2005) an observation confirmed by many authors (however, this notion has recently been challenged based on paired recordings, see (Jiang et al., 2015)).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Howard et al., 2005 source
• Supported

  The Conclusion (page not specified) identifies chandelier cells among interneurons that project to pyramidal neurons and says they also preferentially project to interneurons of the same morphological type. That paired-recording connectivity finding supports the citing sentence’s attribution to Jiang et al.: a challenge to exclusive pyramidal-cell targeting. The earlier reports of exclusivity are attributed to other authors, not to Jiang et al. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites Jiang et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“Axo-axonic or chandelier cells are also considered fast spiking, although some differences in intrinsic electrophysiological properties with PV basket cells have been reported”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction states that chandelier cells display fast-spiking characteristics. The Results section, ‘Intracellular responses of chandelier and basket cells,’ reports electrophysiological differences between the two cell types, including input resistance, rheobase and membrane time constant. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Woodruff et al., 2009 source

In the paper

“we broadly define Martinotti cells as Sst expressing INs with a plexus of axon in L1, where it is known to target the tuft dendrites of pyramidal cells, including making synapses on spines”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The paper’s text under the Abstract heading says somatostatin-expressing interneurons target pyramidal-cell dendrites and reports their terminals apposed to apical dendritic spines. It does not identify those interneurons as Martinotti cells or describe a layer 1 axonal plexus targeting tuft dendrites. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Chiu et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1996 source
• Supported

  The paper reports that all molecularly tested Martinotti cells expressed somatostatin (p. 1) and describes their layer I axonal arborization contacting pyramidal-cell tuft dendrites (p. 1). Its EM analysis also identifies synapses onto spines in layer I (Synaptic targets of Martinotti cells under EM, p. 12). (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Wang et al., 2004 source

In the paper

“Although so far only minor electrophysiological or morphological differences between CR+ and CR- Sst INs have been identified, distinct excitatory input patterns have been found (Xu and Callaway, 2009; Xu et al., 2006).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section on SOM+/CR+ and SOM+/CR− Martinotti cells reports significantly different excitatory input patterns. The Results section on cell identification describes both as Martinotti cells with similar accommodating firing patterns, while noting differences in morphology and quantitative spike shape; this supports the contrast in the citing sentence. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Xu and Callaway, 2009 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2006

In the paper

“It has been reported that Vip-expressing bipolar neurons are also depolarized by muscarinic agonists (Kawaguchi, 1997)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The results section reports that VIP cells were depolarized by carbachol or muscarine, and Fig. 3D shows a VIP cell depolarized by muscarine. The same section describes the responsive VIP cells as including bitufted, double-bouquet cells, consistent with the citing sentence’s description of bipolar neurons. Our copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Kawaguchi, 1997 source

In the paper

“Vip neurons, as a population, preferentially form synapses onto Sst neurons. This seems to be particularly true for the Vip bipolar (CR+) cells (Caputi et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2015)”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caputi et al., 2009 source
• Partly supported

  The Conclusion (page unavailable) identifies VIP+ bipolar cells and reports that bipolar cells project almost exclusively to Martinotti cells, most of which are SOM+. But it also reports that VIP+ bitufted cells connect to both Martinotti and pyramidal neurons; it does not establish a preference for Sst neurons across the VIP population or identify the bipolar cells as CR+. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Jiang et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In contrast, Vip INs in deeper layers had dendrites spanning both supra- and infragranular layers, but had their axons restricted to L5/6 (Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1996; Pronneke et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1996 source
• Supported

  The Discussion (VIP Neurons Show a Broad Spectrum of Morphological and Electrophysiological Properties; page unavailable) says that layer IV–VI VIP neurons have dendrites across all cortical layers and axons virtually confined to layers V and VI, in contrast to layer II/III neurons. The Results (Morphological Properties of Individual VIP Neurons; page unavailable) also identifies a bipolar neuron among the deeper-layer VIP neurons. “Restricted” is supported as a description of the predominant axonal distribution, not absolute confinement. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites Pronneke et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“At least a portion of Vip INs seems to form perisomatic basket terminals on their postsynaptic targets. Vip containing boutons have been found on both PCs and INs (David et al., 2007; Freund et al., 1986; Hioki et al., 2013; Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1996; Peters, 1990; Staiger et al., 2004).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The discussion (Technical considerations; page not supplied) describes VIP-positive boutons arranged like baskets around PV-positive interneuron cell bodies, and the correlated microscopy analysis verifies somatic synapses on those cells. The paper discusses VIP effects on pyramidal cells but does not show VIP-containing boutons on pyramidal cells, so it supports only the interneuron-target part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites David et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freund et al., 1986 source
• Partly supported

  The “Axosomatic inputs of VIP neurons to PV neurons” section reports that VIP inputs preferentially target the cell bodies of PV interneurons, supporting the perisomatic-interneuron part of the claim. Our copy does not show VIP-containing boutons on pyramidal cells; the Discussion instead describes PV-producing basket cells targeting pyramidal cells. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites Hioki et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The large majority of Vip INs have a vertically oriented, bipolar-like dendritic morphology, the remaining being multipolar (Bayraktar et al., 2000; Pronneke et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bayraktar et al., 2000 source
• Partly supported

  The Results, under “Somatodendritic Features” (page not provided), report 3 bipolar, 6 modified bipolar, 6 tufted, 2 multipolar, and 1 unclassified neuron among 18 reconstructed VIP cells. This supports a predominance of bipolar or related forms and the presence of multipolar cells, but not the claim that all remaining cells are multipolar; the passage also does not establish vertical orientation for the dendrites. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites Pronneke et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Like all 5HT3aR INs, Vip INs are strongly depolarized by 5HT3aR agonists (Ferezou et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2010), in addition to showing nicotinic ACh responses, suggesting that activity in neuromodulatory centers, such as raphe and basal forebrain neurons, could rapidly activate these interneurons.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The paper reports rapid 5-HT3 receptor-mediated excitation of neocortical VIP/CCK interneurons by serotonergic fibers from the raphe (Evoked synaptic responses; page not supplied). It also reports that cells responsive to the 5-HT3 agonist mCPBG responded to a nicotinic agonist (Coexpression of 5-HT3 Rs and nicotinic receptors; page not supplied). It does not establish the claim for all VIP or 5-HT3A-expressing interneurons, or specifically link their rapid activation to basal forebrain neurons. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  cites Ferezou et al., 2002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Supported

  The Functional expression of 5-HT3A Rs section (page unavailable) reports fast depolarization after a 5-HT3A-selective agonist in every tested receptor-expressing subtype; the Intrinsic electrophysiological properties section identifies VIP-associated subtypes among them. The paper also reports nicotine responses and suggests that serotonin and acetylcholine can rapidly activate these interneurons. The named raphe and basal forebrain centers are the citing authors’ inference, not the point directly attached to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Lee et al., 2010 source

In the paper

“a small subpopulation of Sst neurons in prefrontal cortex express oxytocin receptors, and this expression is critical to the modulation of sociosexual behavior by this hormone (Nakajima et al., 2014).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction identifies a small population of somatostatin-expressing cortical interneurons that express the oxytocin receptor. The Results report that silencing these neurons or deleting the receptor in the medial prefrontal cortex disrupted female mice’s social interest in males during estrus. The demonstrated behavioral role is specific to that sex and reproductive state. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Nakajima et al., 2014 source

In the paper

“Excitatory inputs to VIP cells are depressing, as is the case for the inputs from most INs (Porter et al., 1998; Rozov et al., 2001).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Porter et al., 1998 source
• Partly supported

  The Identification of bipolar interneurons section reports frequency-dependent depression of excitatory EPSPs in VIP-immunoreactive bipolar interneurons, supporting the claim about inputs to VIP cells. The passages do not establish that inputs to most interneurons are depressing; the Anatomical and functional signature section instead notes facilitating input to bitufted interneurons. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Rozov et al., 2001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Some Vip INs also express the ACh synthetizing enzyme choline acetyl transferase (ChAT). ChAT-expressing INs appear to be irregular spiking, CR+, and have “bipolar” dendritic morphology (Cauli et al., 2014; Porter et al., 1998).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Neurochemical Properties section reports that up to 50% of VIP+ bipolar neurons co-express ChAT and that ChAT occurs in CR+/VIP+ bipolar interneurons. Figure 4 describes a recorded CR+/VIP+/ChAT+ neuron with irregularly discharged action potentials, supporting the electrophysiological description. The supplied copy gives section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Cauli et al., 2014 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Porter et al., 1998 source

In the paper

“Even if INs densely contact neighboring excitatory cells and vice versa, some evidence suggests that PV INs exhibit output strengths that correlate with the amount of excitation received by the postsynaptic cell (Xue et al., 2014) or the type of postsynaptic projection neuron (Lee et al., 2014a; Lee et al., 2014d).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The paper reports that PV cells provide stronger inhibition to pyramidal neurons receiving stronger layer 4-mediated excitation (Abstract, Fig. 2e–h). The projection-neuron-type clause is attributed to the Lee citations, not to Xue et al. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Xue et al., 2014 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Lee et al., 2014a
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Lee et al., 2014d

In the paper

“Local GABA release can affect target cells as a result of changes in membrane potential through a local IPSP that will decrease with distance according to the cell’s cable properties, as well as changes in membrane resistance created by the local conductance change (shunting inhibition) (Fishell and Rudy, 2011).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The “MECHANISMS OF INHIBITION” section describes GABA-mediated hyperpolarization and explains that increased membrane conductance lowers membrane resistance, producing shunting inhibition (page not provided). It does not state that a local IPSP decreases with distance according to the cell’s cable properties. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Fishell and Rudy, 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Sometimes called “elongated neurogliaform cells” (Jiang et al., 2015; Jiang et al., 2013) this subtype of NGFC resembles typical “spherical” NGFCs not only in having a very dense axonal arbor surrounding a short multipolar dendritic tree, but in having seemingly similar intrinsic and functional properties, including a frequent late spiking firing pattern, an apparent lack of spike frequency adapta”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  cites Cruikshank et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  cites Hestrin and Armstrong, 1996 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  cites Jiang et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Instead, many studies have simply assumed the late-spiking discharge pattern as a bona fide indicator of a neurogliaform cell. However, although a strong trend, this has been shown to not always be the case (Jiang et al., 2015).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Conclusion reports that late-spiking was common among neurogliaform cells: 77 of 84 layer 1 cells showed it, as did all layer 5 cells. It also says layer 2/3 neurogliaform firing properties distinguished them from most other cell types, but not a small number of bitufted cells. Together, these passages support the point that the discharge pattern is a strong trend, not an infallible identifier. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites Jiang et al., 2015 source

In the paper

“As a result, similar to what is observed in the neocortex and hippocampus, bursts of mitral and tufted cell activity mediate a short-latency feed-forward disynaptic inhibition of the pyramidal cells, except that this inhibition occurs on the distal apical dendrite.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction says bursts of mitral/tufted cell activity initially recruit L1a interneurons that mediate short-latency, disynaptic inhibition targeting pyramidal-cell dendrites. The Discussion (‘Routing of inhibition from dendrite to soma’) locates this early inhibition on the apical dendritic compartment; it also notes that dendritic inhibition wanes during bursts and later somatic inhibition can emerge. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Stokes and Isaacson, 2010 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Suzuki and Bekkers, 2010, 2012

In the paper

“provided by high quantal amplitude with calcium permeable AMPA receptors (Hull et al., 2009) and multiple synaptic contacts forming clusters of neurotransmitter release sites (Bagnall et al., 2011).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results sections report approximately fourfold larger quantal responses at thalamocortical synapses onto fast-spiking cells and show that their AMPA-receptor currents are predominantly mediated by GluR2-lacking receptors, consistent with calcium permeability. The claim about clustered release sites is attached to Bagnall et al. (2011), not Hull et al. (2009). (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Hull et al., 2009 source
• Supported

  The Introduction describes individual thalamic axons making multiple contacts across a cortical interneuron’s dendritic arbor, each with several release sites. The Results identify parvalbumin-positive interneurons as the postsynaptic cells. The calcium-permeable AMPA receptor claim is cited separately to Hull et al. (2009), so it is not the part attributed to Bagnall et al. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Bagnall et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“Differences in the dynamics of input and output synapses of PCs and PV INs have also been suggested to mediate changes in the balance between excitation and inhibition as a function of input frequency during different brain states (Taub et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  In “The magnitude of the cortical inhibitory input is rate dependent” (page unavailable), the paper describes different depression dynamics at synapses onto excitatory and inhibitory neurons and at reciprocal connections between fast-spiking inhibitory and regular-spiking excitatory neurons. It suggests that input rate and synaptic depression can change the excitation–inhibition balance across cortical states, matching the citing sentence’s hedged claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Taub et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“TC axons synapse onto both PCs and neighboring PV cells (Cruikshank et al., 2007; Gabernet et al., 2005; Inoue and Imoto, 2006), but show higher connection probability onto PV INs through larger convergence and divergence (Bruno and Simons, 2002; Cruikshank et al., 2007; Inoue and Imoto, 2006; Swadlow and Gusev, 2002).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (pp. 2–4) show direct thalamic input to neighboring fast-spiking inhibitory and regular-spiking excitatory cells, and infer that more thalamic neurons converge onto each inhibitory cell. The Methods (p. 7) identify a subset of the fast-spiking cells as parvalbumin-expressing. The paper does not establish greater divergence of thalamocortical axons onto PV cells, so that part of the attributed explanation is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Cruikshank et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Inoue and Imoto, 2006 source

In the paper

“Interestingly, this adaptive modification of the window of opportunity has been suggested to be an important component allowing the switching from detecting the presence of a sensory stimulus to discriminating between different stimuli (Wang et al., 2010)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results sections “Discrimination and the Ideal Observer” and “Detection, Discrimination, and Window of Opportunity” report that adaptation shifted cortical responses from favoring detection to favoring discrimination. The latter section describes an adaptation-dependent increase in the window of opportunity and a corresponding increase in discrimination performance in the model. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites Wang et al., 2010 source

In the paper

“As a result of this circuit, thalamo-recipient principal neurons act as coincidence detectors of near synchronous thalamic input (Figure 5B) and improve the sensitivity of cortical neurons to the temporal distribution of thalamic spiking activity (Bruno and Sakmann, 2006; Bruno and Simons, 2002; Cardin et al., 2010; Pinto et al., 2000; Pinto et al., 2003)”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bruno and Sakmann, 2006 source
• Supported

  In ‘Feedforward inhibition within local cortical circuits’ (page unavailable), the paper concludes that strong feedforward inhibition makes barrel circuitry particularly sensitive to the initial firing synchrony of thalamic neurons and shapes excitatory-cell responses. The Discussion (page unavailable) adds that individual thalamocortical spikes primarily produce subthreshold inputs. Together, these support the claim’s functional description of excitatory neurons detecting near-synchronous input, although the paper does not use the term ‘coincidence detectors.’ (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Bruno and Simons, 2002 source
• Supported

  The Results (‘Temporal sensitivity in layer 4’) report that synchronous inputs from distinct pools of thalamic cells produced supralinear responses and greater spike-timing precision. The Discussion (‘Temporal sensitivity in cortical neurons’) describes thalamorecipient neurons as highly sensitive to synchronous inputs within a short detection window. Together, these support the attributed coincidence-detection and temporal-sensitivity claim. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Cardin et al., 2010 source

In the paper

“Unitary thalamocortical connections onto PV cells are faster and fourfold stronger than those onto the PCs(Cruikshank et al., 2007; Gabernet et al., 2005; Inoue and Imoto, 2006)”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  Table 1 (Results, p. 5) reports unitary thalamocortical conductances of 3.0 nS in fast-spiking inhibitory cells versus 0.7 nS in regular-spiking excitatory cells—about fourfold stronger. The Results (p. 4) also report faster excitatory-conductance kinetics in fast-spiking cells, but those timing measurements concern evoked conductances rather than specifically unitary connections. The paper therefore does not establish the claim's unitary-level speed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Cruikshank et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Inoue and Imoto, 2006 source

In the paper

“Work investigating the postsynaptic targets of VIP cells showed that these neurons contacted the perisomatic region of PV INs”

• Also stated in: § C. Disinhibition · plain

  “as well as calbindin INs”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Correlated light and electron microscopic analysis section reports VIP-positive boutons contacting PV-positive cell bodies, with most examined somatic contacts verified as synapses. The Technical considerations section also reports that calbindin-containing interneurons receive massive innervation from VIP-positive interneurons, citing earlier work for that finding. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites David et al., 2007 source
• Supported

  The ‘Axosomatic inputs of VIP neurons to PV neurons’ section reports that VIP inputs preferred PV cell bodies over dendrites, supporting the perisomatic contact attributed in the quoted citing sentence. The quoted sentence does not attribute the separate calbindin claim to this source. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Hioki et al., 2013 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Staiger et al., 2004 source

In the paper

“This adds to the anatomical observation that L1 CR dendrites (a major proportion of which are dendrites of VIP INs) in V1 are a primary target of feedback from secondary visual area (Gonchar and Burkhalter, 2003), suggesting that this could be a common circuit motif for cortico-cortical interaction.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The ‘Inputs to CR neurons in layer 1’ section reports that feedback to layer-1 CR neurons in rat area 17 is abundant, contacts somata and dendrites, and accounts for 21.3% of the projection. The paper does not identify those CR dendrites as belonging largely to VIP interneurons; its analysis labels CR, PV, and SOM neurons, not VIP neurons. The proposed common circuit motif is the citing authors’ suggestion, rather than a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Gonchar and Burkhalter, 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Lee et al., (Lee et al., 2013) found that the VIP cells were the non-FS showing elevated activity during periods of whisking, while Sst INs were anticorrelated as previously observed.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (Fig. 5; page not provided) show that VIP interneuron firing increased during whisking while SST interneuron firing decreased. The Discussion says that some previously observed non–fast-spiking neurons were *presumably* VIP interneurons, particularly those active during whisking, but says their subtype had not been identified. The claim overstates that identification as definite. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Lee et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“these neurons were easily driven to spike by the stimulus, likely due in part to the large input resistance of VIP cells compared to other interneurons (Table I).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (page unavailable) report that stimulation of vM1 inputs evoked spikes in VIP interneurons. They also report higher input resistance as a likely contributor to depolarization in the broader 5HT3aR interneuron population, but do not establish that VIP cells specifically have higher input resistance than other interneurons. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  cites Lee et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Table I

In the paper

“This study also provided evidence that the circuitry involved was permissive for the effects of VIP IN recruitment to act in a spatially restricted manner, consistent with the narrow axonal distribution of VIP INs”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The circuit-model passage (Fig. 4F; page unavailable) says VIP+ neurons selectively enhance responses at the site of focal cingulate-axon activation through localized inhibition of SOM+ neurons. The optogenetic-inactivation passage (Fig. 4B; page unavailable) likewise reports a VIP+ effect at 0 μm but not at other locations. These passages support spatially restricted VIP effects, but our copy does not establish the claimed narrow axonal distribution of VIP interneurons. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Zhang et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“These observations predicted that when M1 inputs activate VIP cells, Sst interneurons will be inhibited, and hence the dendrites of the pyramidal cells will be disinhibited (Figure 7).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results report that vM1 inputs recruit VIP interneurons, which strongly inhibit SST interneurons. The Discussion states that SST interneurons target pyramidal-cell distal dendrites and that this circuit suggests disinhibition of those dendrites. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Lee et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“activating or inactivating Cg axons during a visual discrimination task improved or reduced behavioral performance, respectively.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The passage on awake mice (section labelled Abstract; page unavailable) reports that Cg activation improved performance on a visual discrimination task. It reports that inactivating Cg excitatory neurons decreased V1 responses, not behavioral performance. The axon-activation experiment measured V1 responses in anesthetized mice, so the copy does not establish that activating or inactivating Cg axons during the task produced the claimed behavioral effects. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Zhang et al., 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“These experiments strongly suggest that VIP neurons can be recruited by motor cortex, likely through a direct glutamatergic projection, and in turn inhibit Sst INs.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results state that excitatory inputs from vM1 recruit VIP interneurons, which then strongly inhibit SST interneurons. The Discussion identifies VIP interneurons as primary targets of vM1 axonal projections, supporting the claim’s qualified description of a likely direct projection. No page numbers are provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Lee et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“Although these results do not imply direct thalamic recruitment, it does show that VIP cells are recruited by afferent sensory signals.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Fu et al., 2014
• Supported

  The Results section (‘Visual responses in identified neurons’; page unavailable) reports that 40% of sampled VIP neurons responded to the visual-stimulus protocol, supporting sensory recruitment in mouse visual cortex. The reported calcium responses do not establish that thalamic input directly recruited those neurons, as the claim acknowledges. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Kerlin et al., 2010 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Pi et al., 2013

In the paper

“despite the thalamus driven synaptic currents on VIP neurons being much smaller than those on fast spiking PV interneurons, the high input resistance of VIP cells makes them significantly excitable by thalamic stimulation (Lee et al., 2010).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  In “Direct thalamocortical synaptic input to 5-HT3AR-expressing neurons” (page not available), the paper reports much smaller thalamus-evoked currents than in fast-spiking neurons, yet strong depolarization in a subset, attributed in part to high input resistance. The tested cells are identified as 5-HT3AR-expressing neurons, however, not specifically as VIP neurons; the cited result therefore does not establish the claim for VIP cells as a group. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Lee et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In somatosensory cortex, layer 4 FS PV INs show broad tuning to angular direction of whisker movement and multiwhisker receptive fields (Bruno and Simons, 2002; Lee and Simons, 2004).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The paper’s opening summary and RF properties section report that rat layer IV fast-spike units are less directionally selective than regular-spike units and that 30 of 32 fully tested fast-spike units responded to multiple whiskers. It identifies these units by their extracellular waveforms as presumed inhibitory neurons, but does not establish that the recorded cells were parvalbumin-positive (PV). (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Bruno and Simons, 2002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee and Simons, 2004 source

In the paper

“The SBCs described by Jiang et al. (Jiang et al., 2013) resemble VIP INs, raising the possibility that the fear-conditioning-related disinhibition might be another example of VIP-mediated disinhibition.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) describe SBCs and show that their circuits disinhibit layer 5 pyramidal neurons. Our copy does not identify SBCs as resembling VIP interneurons or connect this circuit to fear conditioning (searched: VIP, fear conditioning). The proposed VIP-mediated interpretation goes beyond what this source establishes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  cites Jiang et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Pi et al., 2013

In the paper

“SBCs connect to all IN subtypes in L2/3 (but not to PCs)(Jiang et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results state that SBCs inhibited all seven L2/3 interneuron types the authors classified. The Results also found no direct inhibition of L5 pyramidal neurons by SBCs, but do not establish the broader claim that SBCs do not connect to principal cells at any layer. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  cites Jiang et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“While SBCs appear to be a prominent L1 interneuron type (Jiang et al., 2013), VIP INs only account for about 5% of L1 INs (see Diversity section).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results classify 466 recorded L1 neurons as single bouquet cells, compared with 196 as elongated neurogliaform cells, supporting the cautious description of SBCs as a prominent L1 interneuron type. The approximately 5% figure for VIP interneurons is attributed to the citing paper’s Diversity section, not to Jiang et al. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites Jiang et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“the faster time constant of FS neurons and stronger excitatory inputs allows for larger and faster membrane potential changes, and consequently FS neurons can reach threshold more often leading to spiking activity for non-preferred stimuli and hence broader tuning (Cardin et al., 2007).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The sections on membrane properties and stimulus selectivity report that layer 4 fast-spiking (FS) cells have shorter time constants, faster membrane-potential fluctuations, and broader spike tuning; the discussion of synaptic inputs says stronger inputs can produce larger-amplitude responses. The section on spike tuning also links increased fluctuations to more frequent threshold crossings. The claim omits the layer 4 restriction: the paper reports that the faster fluctuations were not observed in the other layers examined. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Cardin et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Intracellular recording from INs, mostly FS INs, revealed that the selectivity of sensory-evoked EPSPs to FS neurons is comparable to those to excitatory neurons (Cardin et al., 2007; Hirsch et al., 2003), suggesting that they receive roughly similar inputs.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results section (‘Differences in stimulus selectivity between RS and FS cells in layer 4’) reports comparable orientation and spatial-frequency tuning of visually evoked membrane-potential responses and infers similar tuning of summed synaptic input. It does not report a separate comparison of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs), so the claim is more specific than the measurement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Cardin et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hirsch et al., 2003 source

In the paper

“FS neurons in cat visual cortex do respond more selectively to orientation stimulus reflecting similarly tuned local population”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Azouz et al., 1997 source
• Partly supported

  The Introduction and ‘Tuning of excitation and inhibition in local cortical networks’ report that fast-spiking neurons in cat visual cortex are orientation-selective. But the paper finds their layer 4 spike responses are broader, not more selective, than those of regular-spiking neurons; it does not establish that their selectivity reflects a similarly tuned local population. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites Cardin et al., 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Could not verify

  The Abstract describes orientation selectivity and receptive-field structure in cat visual cortex, but does not identify fast-spiking neurons or a similarly tuned local population. The Discussion says that inhibitory complex cells in layer 4 were reported not to be orientation-tuned; it does not establish that these are the fast-spiking neurons in the claim. Searches for fast-spiking neurons and local-population tuning found no passage addressing the attributed finding. (LLM, conf=0.72)

  cites Martinez et al., 2005 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“the orientation selectivity of PV neurons was later shown to be inversely correlated with the extent of their dendritic arbor, suggesting that tuning of PV INs could be simply related to the spatial extent to which they can sample excitatory inputs (Runyan and Sur, 2013).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The morphology results report that more sharply tuned PV neurons have smaller dendritic trees and shorter dendritic extents. The orientation-preference-maps section links this correlation to a proposed mechanism: sharper tuning may reflect more focal sampling of the local cortical neighborhood. Page numbers are not provided in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Runyan and Sur, 2013 source

In the paper

“Jiang et al. (Jiang et al., 2013) found that besides NGFCs, L1 had another large subpopulation of neurons identified as “single bouquet cells” (SBC), having a descending axon to L2/3”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results (Fig. 1) classify L1 interneurons into single bouquet/bundle cells (SBCs) and elongated neurogliaform cells, and describe the numerous SBCs as having a vertically descending axonal bundle. The Results (Fig. 5) describe SBC connections to L2/3 interneurons. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Jiang et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“VIP INs, which have low connectivity to all neurons including pyramidal cells but exhibit substantially stronger connectivity to Sst INs (Lee et al., 2013; Pfeffer et al., 2013; Pi et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion states that VIP interneurons have small connectivity to all neurons, including pyramidal cells, but substantially stronger connectivity to SST interneurons. The Results also report that VIP interneurons most strongly inhibit SST interneurons. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Lee et al., 2013 source
• Supported

  The Results section (‘Interneurons targeted by VIP cells’; page unavailable) identifies Sst cells as VIP cells’ principal target. It reports much stronger VIP-mediated inhibition of Sst cells than of pyramidal cells and very little inhibition of the other tested targets, matching the claimed connectivity pattern. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Pfeffer et al., 2013 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Pi et al., 2013

In the paper

“It appears that for the most part cortical INs are more broadly tuned than nearby PCs, yet different INs show various degrees of sensory tuning.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results section, “Visual Responses of PV Cells Are Distinct from Those of Pyr Cells,” reports that parvalbumin-expressing interneurons were more broadly tuned to visual-stimulus orientation than pyramidal cells. But the paper studies this one interneuron class; its Discussion calls for future comparisons with other classes rather than establishing that different interneuron types have varying degrees of sensory tuning. The claim also generalizes the PV-cell finding to cortical interneurons overall. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites Atallah et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Partly supported

  The Results report that GABAergic neurons in mouse visual cortex are generally more broadly tuned than excitatory neurons, and that individual interneurons vary in tuning. However, the Results and Discussion say the studied subtypes were remarkably similar in their sensory tuning, so the source does not support the paraphrase’s implication of substantial differences between interneuron types. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Kerlin et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“These INs preferentially formed unidirectional inhibitory connections on all subtypes of L2/3 interneurons and can thus produce disinhibition of pyramidal cells.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Introduction and Discussion state that single-bouquet cells preferentially form unidirectional inhibitory connections with all seven types of L2/3 interneurons. The Discussion also says these circuits disinhibit dendritic complex spiking in a small population of L5 pyramidal neurons. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Jiang et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“These studies demonstrated that PV and Sst inhibitory neurons play distinct roles in the tuning of excitatory neurons producing either divisive or subtractive inhibition.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results section, “A Linear Function Describes How PV Cells Control Pyr Cell Visual Responses” (page unavailable), reports that activating PV cells both multiplied pyramidal-cell responses by 0.7 and subtracted a constant amount. The paper studies PV cells, not Sst cells; its Discussion calls comparisons with other inhibitory cell types a subject for future work. It therefore does not establish distinct PV and Sst roles or assign divisive versus subtractive inhibition to the two types. (LLM, conf=0.89)

  cites Atallah et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Supported

  The Discussion reports that PV+ neurons provide divisive inhibition while SOM+ (Sst) neurons provide subtractive inhibition when probed with small stimuli. It also specifies that the roles depend on stimulus conditions: with large stimuli, both provide divisive inhibition. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites El-Boustani and Sur, 2014 source
• Supported

  The paper’s Abstract (passage 1; no page number supplied) reports a strong subtractive effect of PV+ activation and a primarily divisive effect of SOM+ activation on neuronal responses. It also describes different effects on the firing-rate functions underlying tuning. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites Lee et al., 2012 source

In the paper

“Excitatory inputs to FS INs from thalamus have also been shown to be stronger (Cruikshank et al., 2007; Gabernet et al., 2005) and exhibiting more convergence (Bruno and Simons, 2002; Swadlow and Gusev, 2002) onto FS than PCs.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Cruikshank et al. is cited for the stronger-input part of the sentence; the convergence part is assigned to other citations. The Discussion (p. 7) reports that excitatory conductances in fast-spiking cells averaged 7.7 times those in regular-spiking cells. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Cruikshank et al., 2007 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source
• Supported

  In “Feedforward inhibition within local cortical circuits,” the paper concludes that effective thalamocortical convergence is substantially greater onto fast-spike inhibitory barrel neurons than onto regular-spike presumed excitatory cells. It also states that individual connections onto inhibitory cells are stronger. The citing sentence specifically uses this paper for the convergence comparison. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Bruno and Simons, 2002 source

In the paper

“Some studies found that Sst INs sharpen orientation tuning (Wilson et al., 2012), while activation of PV INs was found to have a minor effect on tuning but changed response gain”

What the sources say

• Supported

  In “Distinct functions of inhibitory cell classes,” SOM (Sst) activation increased orientation selectivity and narrowed tuning width, while PV activation did not significantly change either measure. “Differential inhibitory impact on target-cell gain” reports that PV activation reduced response gain. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Wilson et al., 2012 source
• Supported

  The Results section, “PV Cells Only Modestly Impact Pyr Cell Orientation Tuning,” reports that PV-cell activation had only modest effects on orientation tuning. The Discussion states that PV interneurons have a minor effect on orientation selectivity and can modulate response gain. The Sst finding is attributed to Wilson et al. in the citing sentence, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites Atallah et al., 2012 source
• Supported

  The Abstract reports that two studies found PV+ neuron activation altered response gain with little effect on orientation tuning width. The Sst tuning claim is separately attributed to Wilson et al. (2012), so the PV clause is the relevant attribution to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites El-Boustani and Sur, 2014 source

In the paper

“In other studies, however, blockage of inhibition was found to change response magnitude yet had minor effect on tuning properties (Katzner et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 1994; Ozeki et al., 2004), suggesting sensory selectivity is inherited from thalamic inputs.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  In Results (‘Role of GABAA inhibition in stimulus selectivity’; page unavailable), blocking inhibition increased responsiveness in every cell, but it also significantly changed orientation selectivity in 11 of 19 cells, tuning width in 7, and direction selectivity in 6. The paper supports a larger and more consistent effect on response magnitude than on tuning, but ‘minor effect on tuning’ understates those changes. Its Discussion attributes sharpening of selectivity partly to inhibition and spike threshold; it does not establish that sensory selectivity is inherited from thalamic inputs. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites Katzner et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nelson et al., 1994 source
• Supported

  In “Size tuning of surround suppression in V1,” the paper reports that blocking inhibition with BMI increased response magnitude while leaving size-tuning patterns largely similar. Its orientation-tuning results likewise report increased responses without a significant change in tuning width. “Mechanisms underlying surround suppression” proposes thalamic excitatory input as a likely origin of the observed tuning, consistent with the citing sentence’s tentative inference. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites Ozeki et al., 2004 source

In the paper

“Others reported that PV INs sharpened tuning but not Sst INs (Lee et al., 2012).”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The paper reports that activating PV+ interneurons sharpened orientation tuning in mouse V1, whereas activating SOM+ interneurons had no significant effect. SOM+ is the paper’s term for the Sst interneurons named in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites Lee et al., 2012 source

In the paper

“Although they represent a minority of the total neocortical neuronal population, GABAergic interneurons are highly heterogeneous, forming functional classes based on their morphological, electrophysiological and molecular features as well as connectivity and in vivo patterns of activity.”

In the paper

“Active dendritic properties (Kv3 channels and low density of voltage gated Na+ channels) facilitate generation of fast, temporally independent EPSPs6, enhancing FS cell’s ability to detect temporally coincident inputs and promote fast, reliable and temporally precise EPSP-action potential conversion6,7.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] source

In the paper

“chandelier or axo-axonic cells, which target the axon initial segment of pyramidal cells”

In the paper

“Since basket cells make perisomatic synapses, local cells will inhibit mainly local populations, while translaminar cells provide a means for interlaminar interactions via inhibition.”

In the paper

“Fast EPSPs ensure rapid and reliable excitation of FS cells and limit EPSP summation to near synchronous inputs, promoting coincidence detection and facilitating compartmentalization of distinct input streams.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] source

In the paper

“These specializations allow FS basket cells to function as coincidence detectors and impose this function onto their postsynaptic targets”

In the paper

“One of the challenges in the single-cell RNA sequencing is the high level of variation due to the low efficiency of capturing each cell’s transcript complement.”

In the paper

“A third type of PV cells not shown in Figure 1 are the “multipolar bursting cells” (Blatow et al., 2003; Caputi et al., 2009). These neurons, found mainly in upper L2, differ from FS multipolar basket cells in their morphological and electrophysiological properties.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Blatow et al., 2003 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caputi et al., 2009 source

In the paper

“the single-cell mRNA profiling provides a powerful approach to characterize and classify neurons at the single cell level. This approach opens up the possibility to identify new subpopulations of cells.”

In the paper

“The PV group includes the chandelier or axo-axonic cells, which target the axon initial segment of pyramidal cells and the fast-spiking (FS) basket cells”

In the paper

“some PV basket cells (particularly in supragranular and infragranular layers, but not in L4) have axons that span several columns, suggesting that in addition to providing inhibition to the column where they are located, they can influence neighboring columns.”

In the paper

“Some cortical layers (L4 in S1) contain only PV basket cells with largely local axon, while others (e.g. L5) in addition to PV basket cells with largely local axon have PV basket cells with local and translaminar axons.”

In the paper

“The high Na+ channel density compensates for the unfavorable morphological properties of PV basket cell axons (small diameter, extensive branching, and high bouton density) and increase conduction velocity reducing the delay between action potential initiation and uIPSC onset in postsynaptic cells.”

In the paper

“the fast-spiking (FS) basket cells, INs that make perisomatic “basket” terminals on PCs and INs, the latter being numerically dominant.”

In the paper

“Voltage-gated Na+ channels with slower inactivation and faster recovery likely enable constant Na+ channel availability during spike trains and prevent spike frequency adaptation and spike threshold accommodation16.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] source

In the paper

“molecular subpopulations could represent different states or developmental histories of the same cell type, and their subdivision may not be of interest from the functional point of view.”

In the paper

“it is not clear to what extent the features of speed and precision of FS basket cells described in Box 1 also apply to chandelier cells.”

In the paper

“It seems that the vast majority of the Sst INs in supragranular layers and a significant fraction of those in infragranular layers are Martinotti cells.”

In the paper

“Despite these differences, all SST INs seem to have facilitating excitatory inputs and a muscarinic-mediated depolarization”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beierlein et al., 2003 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kapfer et al., 2007 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Silberberg and Markram, 2007 source

In the paper

“While L2/3 Sst cells predominantly inhibit pyramidal neurons, L4 Sst INs predominantly target local PV INs and thus may produce disinhibition of L4 principal cells”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2013

In the paper

“Non-Martinotti cells are here referred to as Sst INs lacking a significant axonal plexus in L1”

In the paper

“We argue that this distinction is important since the cells we define as non-Martinotti (or non-L1-targeting) will clearly synapse onto different subcellular compartments or cell types and therefore will have a different impact on cellular and network computations than Martinotti cells”

In the paper

“the axon of most Sst INs in L4 of S1 largely remains within this layer, some of them additionally project to L2/3”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Ma et al., 2006
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2013

In the paper

“Non-Vip 5HT3aR INs represent about 60% of 5HT3aR INs and about 90% of all L1 INs (Figure 2).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Figure 2

In the paper

“They are present mainly in L2/3, but can be found in all layers (Figure 2).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Figure 2

In the paper

“About 10–30 % of Vip INs express Cck and about 50–70% of Vip INs express CR. In addition, CR and Cck are largely non-overlapping on Vip cells.”

In the paper

“They are enriched in supragranular layers, where they represent the largest IN population (Figure 2).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Figure 2

In the paper

“are thought to be more heterogeneous than the PV and Sst groups.”

In the paper

“Vip neurons represent about 40% of 5HT3aR INs in barrel cortex.”

In the paper

“Caputi et al. (Caputi et al., 2009) suggested that the output synapses of CR+ Vip cells on pyramidal cells, as well as on PV and somatostatin INs are slightly facilitating.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caputi et al., 2009 source

In the paper

“These neurons have small soma and are largely found in L2, although they are also present in other layers.”

In the paper

“These INs likely correspond to what has been referred to as small CCK basket cells, which, in contrast to the typical vertically oriented translaminar axonal arbor of the Vip bipolar cells, have a rather local axonal arbor (Freund et al., 1986; Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1996; Kubota, 2014; Wang et al., 2002).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freund et al., 1986 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kawaguchi and Kubota, 1996 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kubota, 2014 source

In the paper

“All neurons in L1 are GABAergic INs and most belong to the 5HT3aR group and are largely non-VIP-expressing.”

In the paper

“The IS property is seen mainly at near threshold depolarizations, and is replaced by a regular adapting firing pattern during larger depolarizations.”

In the paper

“According to Peter’s rule connectivity would be established by chance, and would be a reflection of the statistical occurrence of presynaptic axonal terminals being closely apposed to potential postsynaptic targets as dictated by the geometrical distribution of axons and dendrites (Braitenberg and Schuz, 1991).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Braitenberg and Schuz, 1991 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Peters and Feldman, 1976 source

In the paper

“NGFC morphology and/or LS firing pattern have been associated with some markers, although none are though to exclusively target this cell type specifically (Table I).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Table I

In the paper

“For example, tuft dendrites in L1 are contacted by long-range cortico-cortical feedback inputs and high order thalamic nuclei (Petreanu et al., 2009), which have been shown to trigger such calcium events (Gambino et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2012).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Petreanu et al., 2009 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gambino et al., 2014 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2012

In the paper

“Dendritic Ca2+ spikes interact with backpropagating somatic spikes to increase the gain of the input/output function of the pyramidal cell and facilitate a burst-firing mode (Larkum et al., 1999).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Larkum et al., 1999 source

In the paper

“Not only there are still many details missing, but the literature contains conflicting data, likely in part due to differences in technical approaches, area and layer investigated as well as to how cell types were defined.”

In the paper

“NGFCs have been described in all layers, but might be more prevalent in supragranular layers and are a major component of L1.”

In the paper

“This suggests that proximal inhibition is more likely to globally modulate the output of a cell, while distal inhibition acts more locally, such as on specific dendritic branches.”

In the paper

“such connectivity scheme can result in synchronizing a highly interconnected population on the short time scale or imposing a veto as to which interneuron subtypes will provide inhibition to principal cells”

In the paper

“However, given the synaptic and intrinsic properties of PV cells (Box 1), the delay is very short (1–2 ms), creating a limited temporal “window of opportunity” (Alonso and Swadlow, 2005; Pinto et al., 2000) for PCs to summate afferent inputs that will bring them to fire and transduce sensory signals (Gabernet et al., 2005; Wehr and Zador, 2003; Wilent and Contreras, 2005).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alonso and Swadlow, 2005 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pinto et al., 2000 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source

In the paper

“since this group shows dense connectivity to other IN groups but little interconnectivity to other Sst INs”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Table I

In the paper

“the mere presence of an interneuron-to-interneuron connection does not imply disinhibition, as defined above”

• Also stated in: § C. Disinhibition · plain

  “INs are highly interconnected with many other cell types to various degrees (Table I)”

In the paper

“Upon repetitive thalamic firing, stimulus adaptation takes place where TC inputs to both PV and PC neurons depress. Inputs to PV INs depress much more than those to PCs, and PV neuron synapses onto PCs are also depressing.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source

In the paper

“In the piriform cortex, the input layer is L1a, which receives the lateral olfactory tract (LOT) afferents containing the axons of projecting mitral and tufted cells of the olfactory bulb. L1a lacks PV cells.”

In the paper

“The involvement of perisomatic targeting PV neurons, in combination with their intrinsic properties enabling high speed and temporal fidelity, provides unique high pass filtering properties to these feedforward inhibitory circuits, imposing coincidence detection onto postsynaptic neurons.”

In the paper

“It should be stressed that these motifs coexist in probably all interneuron subtypes.”

In the paper

“The main “archetype circuit motifs” are feedforward inhibition, feedback inhibition and disinhibition (Figure 4).”

In the paper

“While FFI acts homogeneously across pyramidal cells, heterogeneities in the distribution of excitatory currents in the neuronal population determined the specific set of pyramidal cells recruited.”

In the paper

“Crucial for thalamocortical transformation and by extension sensory processing in neocortex, this microcircuit involves L4 primary sensory thalamic afferents, L4 PCs projecting locally and to other layers, and local PV FS basket interneurons.”

In the paper

“It is thought that cortical circuits involving INs can largely be accounted for by different iterations and interactions of such core motifs.”

In the paper

“As such, thalamocortical FFI in barrel cortex participates in feature selectivity of L4 PCs by enhancing the differences in cortical responses between preferred and non-preferred stimuli (Pinto et al., 2003; Wilent and Contreras, 2005), thus making the cortex more discriminating than the thalamus.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pinto et al., 2003 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wilent and Contreras, 2005 source

In the paper

“As a result of this scheme, the cortex, while being sensitive to weak stimuli also responds to stronger inputs without saturating (Figure 5F).”

In the paper

“This mechanism is critical for representing velocity and direction selectivity of whisker deflection in the rodent barrel cortex (Pinto et al., 2003; Wilent and Contreras, 2005) and producing cortical responses that more precisely represent the timing of sensory input (Gabernet et al., 2005; Higley and Contreras, 2006).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pinto et al., 2003 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wilent and Contreras, 2005 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source

In the paper

“This results in a decreased fidelity in the recruitment of PV INs and a widening of the temporal window of opportunity of excitatory cells following repetitive stimulation allowing more jitter in cortical spiking activity to take place (Gabernet et al., 2005) (Figure 5C).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gabernet et al., 2005 source

In the paper

“As a result of these synaptic specializations very few inputs are required to drive PV neurons, which in turn form strong, perisomatic GABAergic synapses back onto PCs resulting in a powerful disynaptic feedforward inhibition of these neurons (Figure 5).”

In the paper

“it is interesting to note that the properties of the bipolar CR cells described by Caputi et al. (Caputi et al., 2009)resemble those of VIP neurons (Bayraktar et al., 2000), while the electrophysiological properties of multipolar CR cells are reminiscent of Sst neurons”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Caputi et al., 2009 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bayraktar et al., 2000 source

In the paper

“Conversely, Sst neurons showed the opposite effect, i.e. active during quiescence and strongly inhibited during whisker movement”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gentet et al., 2012 source

In the paper

“These results are surprising given the notion that NGFCs produce volume release of GABA resulting in spatially unrestricted inhibition lacking target specificity, and the fact that the GABAB agonist baclofen inhibits neurotransmission of both FS and thalamocortical synapses on to the spiny stellate cells equally”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chittajallu et al., 2013 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kruglikov and Rudy, 2008 source

In the paper

“Chittajallu et al. (Chittajallu et al., 2013) suggested a disinhibitory role of neurogliaform cells in L4 of somatosensory cortex.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Chittajallu et al., 2013 source

In the paper

“They found that a conditioning foot shock produced nicotinic activation of a yet to be identified subtype of L1 interneuron that inhibited L2/3 PV INs resulting in disinhibition of the pyramidal neurons.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Letzkus et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“Fu et al. (Fu et al., 2014)showed that the increased firing of VIP neurons during running was a broad phenomenon since it was also observed in somatosensory and auditory cortices, pointing toward a more global behavioral state change when the animal is engaged in locomotion.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Fu et al., 2014

In the paper

“In L2/3, connection probability and synaptic strength are larger for principal cells, but in L4, both, the connection probability and the synaptic strength of Sst INs are much larger on PV INs (Beierlein et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 1999; Xu et al., 2013).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Beierlein et al., 2003 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gibson et al., 1999 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2013

In the paper

“increased activity of VIP neurons during sensory stimulation is correlated with the increased gain of PCs (Pi et al., 2013), which has also been shown during natural behavior (Fu et al., 2014).”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Pi et al., 2013
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Fu et al., 2014

In the paper

“Xu et al. (Xu et al., 2013) suggested that the Sst INs in L4 might be activated physiologically by ACh via the well established muscarinic-mediated depolarization of Sst neurons”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2013
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Table I

In the paper

“Evidence for other disinhibitory circuits in neocortex has also come to light in recent years.”

In the paper

“Xu et al., (Xu et al., 2013) found that optogenetic inhibition of Sst INs in an active cortical network in slices increased firing of L2/3 pyramidal cells but it decreased the firing of L4 PCs.”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Xu et al., 2013

In the paper

“While glutamatergic thalamocortical feedforward and cortico-cortical feedback inputs could support spatial specificity in their recruitment of VIP neurons, neuromodulatory systems seem more likely to act globally, at least during certain behavioral states.”

In the paper

“cat visual cortex is organized as a pinwheel-like columnar structure for orientation selectivity.”

In the paper

“There is a growing consensus that IN subtypes differentially contribute to the establishment or modulation of stimulus selectivity.”

In the paper

“Mouse auditory cortex is tonotopically organized.”

In the paper

“Neurons in cortex are organized in a columnar structure, such that groups of neurons within a column share similar functional properties.”

In the paper

“Other factors such as intrinsic biophysical and synaptic properties of interneurons are also likely to contribute.”

In the paper

“Pharmacological blockade of GABAergic inhibition broadened orientation selectivity in visual cortex demonstrating the importance of inhibition in shaping sensory selectivity (Sillito, 1975; Tsumoto et al., 1979).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sillito, 1975 source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tsumoto et al., 1979 source