CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Activity-dependent PI(3,5)P 2 synthesis controls AMPA receptor trafficking during synaptic depression

McCartney, Amber J., Zolov, Sergey N., Kauffman, Emily J., Zhang, Yanling, Strunk, Bethany S., Weisman, Lois S., Sutton, Michael A.·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1411117111
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: Defects in biosynthesis of the signaling lipid phosphatidylinositol 3,5-bisphosphate [PI(3,5)P 2 ] are associated with profound neurodegeneration and early mortality in both humans and mice. However, surprisingly little is known about the functions of this lipid in cells, including neurons, where its loss has the most dramatic impact. Prompted by the striking localization of mammalian homolog of yeast vacuole segregation mutant (Vac14), part of the PI(3,5)P 2 synthesis complex, to excitatory synapses, we developed new tools to measure and manipulate PI(3,5)P 2 synthesis in hippocampal neurons. We find that dynamic changes in PI(3,5)P 2 synthesis impose bidirectional changes on synaptic strength by regulating AMPA-type glutamate receptor trafficking and that activity-dependent regulation of this lipid is crucial for enduring forms of synaptic depression, findings that implicate PI(3,5)P 2 -dependent signaling as a critical synaptic regulatory pathway.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1411117111

Cites

9 of 9 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In control neurons, the cLTD protocol produces a significant and sustained decrease in mEPSC amplitude.

    “In control neurons (scr shRNA), this protocol led to a significant and sustained decrease in mEPSC amplitude (Figure 8A–C), consistent with other studies (McCartney et al., 2014).”

    From Dual endomembrane recycling pathways function in parallel to support synapse maintenance and plasticity (2025) · cites this paper as McCartney et al., 2014

    The Fig. 5 caption (Materials and Methods; page unavailable) reports a significant decrease in mEPSC amplitude in scrambled-shRNA control neurons after 24 hours of bicuculline treatment. The section “Induction of chemical LTD dynamically regulates PIP levels” describes a separate cLTD protocol, but the retrieved passages do not establish a sustained decrease in mEPSC amplitude after that protocol. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. 10.1038/nature05185 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1152/physrev.00028.2012 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1002/bies.201300012 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/nature05876 · DOI
  5. 10.1128/EC.5.4.723-731.2006 · DOI
  6. 10.1083/jcb.200512105 · DOI
  7. 10.1091/mbc.01-10-0498 · DOI
  8. 10.1091/mbc.e03-05-0297 · DOI
  9. 10.1074/jbc.M109.037515 · DOI
  10. 10.1073/pnas.1203106109 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1093/brain/awr148 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.12.010 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000241 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.03.020 · DOI
  15. 10.1083/jcb.143.1.65 · DOI
  16. 10.1091/mbc.6.5.525 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0960-9822(07)00513-1 · DOI
  18. 10.1074/jbc.274.31.21589 · DOI
  19. 10.1083/jcb.200201002 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/emboj.2008.248 · DOI
  21. 10.1073/pnas.0702275104 · DOI
  22. 10.1091/mbc.e08-04-0405 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1600-0854.2009.00915.x · DOI
  24. 10.1074/jbc.M111.222364 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1091/mbc.e03-10-0732 · DOI
  26. 10.1046/j.1356-9597.2001.00510.x · DOI
  27. 10.1152/ajpcell.00105.2012 · DOI
  28. 10.1073/pnas.1213212110 · DOI
  29. 10.1042/bj3230597 · DOI
  30. 10.1091/mbc.e11-12-1034 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/36613 · DOI
  32. 10.1083/jcb.200903028 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/emboj.2012.200 · DOI
  34. 10.1128/MCB.17.12.6847 · DOI
  35. 10.1038/sj.embor.7401155 · DOI
  36. 10.1038/379353a0 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81649-9 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00446-2 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00456-1 · DOI
  40. 10.1073/pnas.222657399 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1038/nature02896 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.032 · DOI
  43. 10.1073/pnas.0809221105 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.01.025 · DOI
  45. 10.1038/nn.2462 · DOI
  46. 10.1038/emboj.2010.160 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80632-7 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0061-12.2012 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.chembiol.2013.05.010 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.03.063 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.044 · DOI
  52. 10.1073/pnas.1311864110 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.12.004 · DOI
  54. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.03.015 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.03.016 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.07.009 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80624-8 · DOI · Paper page
  58. 10.1016/j.conb.2009.07.002 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.09.061 · DOI
  60. 10.31887/DCNS.2013.15.1/jhenley · DOI
  61. 10.1371/journal.pone.0033889 · DOI
  62. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.008 · DOI
  63. 10.1038/nn.2624 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.004 · DOI
  65. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5616-10.2011 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1073/pnas.1312982110 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)81067-3 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00321-X · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.06.015 · DOI
  70. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.08.034 · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.020 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1074/jbc.M312294200 · DOI
  73. 10.1074/jbc.274.26.18407 · DOI
  74. 10.1016/j.febslet.2006.11.061 · DOI
  75. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4502-12.2013 · DOI
  76. 10.1073/pnas.1113736109 · DOI
  77. 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707525 · DOI · Paper page
  78. 10.1016/j.conb.2011.09.006 · DOI
  79. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.034 · DOI
  80. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4340-06.2007 · DOI
  81. 10.1038/nn.2937 · DOI
  82. 10.1073/pnas.1222803110 · DOI
  83. 10.1016/j.conb.2012.02.008 · DOI
  84. 10.1101/gad.342205 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
McCartney, A. J., Zolov, S. N., Kauffman, E. J., Zhang, Y., Strunk, B. S., Weisman, L. S., & Sutton, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Neuroscience Graduate Program,
  • Life Sciences Institute, and
ORCID
McCartney, Amber J.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-10-29
Volume
111
Issue
45
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1411117111
Cited by
69
References
9
Language
en

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