Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The glutamate story

Open access
Watkins, Jeffrey C, Jane, David E·2006·British Journal of Pharmacology

Abstract

Glutamatergic synaptic transmission in the mammalian central nervous system was slowly established over a period of some 20 years, dating from the 1950s. Realisation that glutamate and like amino acids (collectively known as excitatory amino acids (EAA)) mediated their excitatory actions via multiple receptors preceded establishment of these receptors as synaptic transmitter receptors. EAA receptors were initially classified as N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) and non‐NMDA receptors, the latter subdivided into quisqualate (later AMPA) and kainate receptors after agonists that appeared to activate these receptors preferentially, and by their sensitivity to a range of differentially acting antagonists developed progressively during the 1970s. NMDA receptors were definitively shown to be synaptic receptors on spinal neurones by the sensitivity of certain excitatory pathways in the spinal cord to a range of specific NMDA receptor antagonists. Importantly, specific NMDA receptor antagonists appeared to be less effective at synapses in higher centres. In contrast, antagonists that also blocked non‐NMDA as well as NMDA receptors were almost universally effective at blocking synaptic excitation within the brain and spinal cord, establishing both the existence and ubiquity of non‐NMDA synaptic receptor systems throughout the CNS. In the early 1980s, NMDA receptors were shown to be involved in several central synaptic pathways, acting in concert with non‐NMDA receptors under conditions where a protracted excitatory postsynaptic potential was effected in response to intense stimulation of presynaptic fibres. Such activation of NMDA receptors together with non‐NMDA receptors led to the phenomenon of long‐term potentiation (LTP), associated with lasting changes in synaptic efficacy (synaptic plasticity) and considered to be an important process in memory and learning. During the 1980s, it was shown that certain glutamate receptors in the brain mediated biochemical changes that were not susceptible to NMDA or non‐NMDA receptor antagonists. This dichotomy was resolved in the early 1990s by the techniques of molecular biology, which identified two families of glutamate‐binding receptor proteins (ionotropic (iGlu) and metabotropic (mGlu) receptors). Development of antagonists binding to specific protein subunits is currently enabling precise identification of discrete iGlu or mGlu receptor subtypes that participate in a range of central synaptic processes, including synaptic plasticity. British Journal of Pharmacology(2006)147, S100–S108. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0706444

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706444

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Watkins, J. C., & Jane, D. E.
Venue
British Journal of Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-01
Volume
147
Issue
S1
Pages
S100-8
ISSN
  • 0007-1188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5381
OpenAlex
W1584538406
Cited by
295
References
3
FWCI
6.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The glutamate story. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706444
The paper
Watkins, J. C., & Jane, D. E. (2006). The glutamate story. British Journal of Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706444

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.