Cited by 128Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeural dynamics and brain functionGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Postsynaptic Depolarization Scales Quantal Amplitude in Cortical Pyramidal Neurons

Open access
Leslie, Kenneth R., Nelson, Sacha B., Turrigiano, Gina G.·2001·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Pyramidal neurons scale the strength of all of their excitatory synapses up or down in response to long-term changes in activity, and in the direction needed to stabilize firing rates. This form of homeostatic plasticity is likely to play an important role in stabilizing firing rates during learning and developmental plasticity, but the signals that translate a change in activity into global changes in synaptic strength are poorly understood. Some but not all of the effects of long-lasting changes in activity on synaptic strengths can be accounted for by activity-dependent release of the neurotrophin brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Other candidate activity signals include changes in glutamate receptor (GluR) activation, changes in firing rate, or changes in the average level of postsynaptic depolarization. Here we combined elevated KCl (3-12 mm) with ionotropic receptor blockade to dissociate postsynaptic depolarization from receptor activation. Chronic (48 hr) depolarization, ranging between -62 and -36 mV, parametrically reduced the quantal amplitude of excitatory synapses in a BDNF-independent manner. This effect of depolarization did not depend on AMPA, NMDA, or GABA(A) receptor signaling, action-potential generation, or metabotropic GluR activation. Together with previous work, these data suggest that there are two independent signals that regulate activity-dependent synaptic scaling in pyramidal neurons: low levels of BDNF cause excitatory synapses to scale up in strength, whereas depolarization causes excitatory synapses to scale down in strength.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.21-19-j0005.2001

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Scaling up can also be induced by chronic changes in the level of depolarization in a BDNF-independent manner.

    “However, scaling up can also be induced by chronic changes in the level of depolarization in a BDNF-independent manner (Leslie et al. 2001), and the relationship between BDNF-mediated synaptic scaling and cell-autonomous synaptic scaling of excitatory inputs (Ibata et al. 2008) remains unclear.”

    From Homeostatic Synaptic Plasticity: Local and Global Mechanisms for Stabilizing Neuronal Function (2012) · cites this paper as Leslie et al. 2001

    The Abstract (page unavailable) says chronic depolarization reduced excitatory quantal amplitude in a BDNF-independent manner—the opposite of scaling up. It attributes scaling up to low levels of BDNF, and the Discussion likewise distinguishes the BDNF-dependent increase from the depolarization-induced decrease. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leslie, K. R., Nelson, S. B., & Turrigiano, G. G.
Affiliations
Brandeis University (US)
Corresponding author
Turrigiano, Gina G.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2001-10-01
Volume
21
Issue
19
Pages
RC170-RC170
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2163758015
Cited by
128
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9726944)
  • National Institutes of Health (5k02ns001893-03)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS-36853, K02 NS01893, R01NS036853)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Keywords
postsynaptic depolarization, synaptic scaling, homeostatic plasticity, cortical pyramidal neurons, excitatory synapses, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, AMPA receptors, NMDA receptor, GABAA receptor, metabotropic glutamate receptors
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Astrocytes, Calcium Channel Blockers, Cells, Cultured, Cerebral Cortex, Membrane Potentials, Neuronal Plasticity, Potassium Chloride, Synapses, Signal Transduction, Pyramidal Cells, Receptors, Metabotropic Glutamate, Patch-Clamp Techniques, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists, GABA Antagonists, Coculture Techniques, Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, Excitatory Postsynaptic Potentials, Calcium Channels, L-Type, Receptor, trkB, Rats, GABA-A Receptor Antagonists

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