Cited by 362Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeural dynamics and brain functionEpilepsy research and treatment

Activity Deprivation Reduces Miniature IPSC Amplitude by Decreasing the Number of Postsynaptic GABA A Receptors Clustered at Neocortical Synapses

Open access
Kilman, Valerie, van Rossum, Mark C. W., Turrigiano, Gina G.·2002·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Maintaining the proper balance between excitation and inhibition is necessary to prevent cortical circuits from either falling silent or generating epileptiform activity. One mechanism through which cortical networks maintain this balance is through the activity-dependent regulation of inhibition, but whether this is achieved primarily through changes in synapse number or synaptic strength is not clear. Previously, we found that 2 d of activity deprivation increased the amplitude of miniature EPSCs (mEPSCs) onto cultured visual cortical pyramidal neurons. Here we find that this same manipulation decreases the amplitude of mIPSCs. This occurs with no change in single-channel conductance but is accompanied by a reduction in the average number of channels open during the mIPSC peak and a reduction in the intensity of staining for GABAA receptors (GABAARs) at postsynaptic sites. In addition, the number of synaptic sites that express detectable levels of GABAARs was decreased by ∼50% after activity blockade, although there was no reduction in the total number of presynaptic contacts. These data suggest that activity deprivation reduces cortical inhibition by reducing both the number of GABAARs clustered at synaptic sites and the number of functional inhibitory synapses. Because excitatory and inhibitory synaptic currents are regulated in opposite directions by activity blockade, these data suggest that the balance between excitation and inhibition is dynamically regulated by ongoing activity.

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.22-04-01328.2002

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Homeostatic regulation of inhibition involves coordinated changes in postsynaptic strength, synapse number, and likely presynaptic release probability.

    “Interestingly, both in vitro and in vivo studies have documented that homeostatic regulation of inhibition involves coordinated changes in postsynaptic strength, synapse number, and likely presynaptic release probability (Kilman et al. 2002;Maffei et al. 2004;Hartman et al. 2006).”

    From Homeostatic Synaptic Plasticity: Local and Global Mechanisms for Stabilizing Neuronal Function (2012) · cites this paper as Kilman et al. 2002

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports that activity deprivation reduced mIPSC amplitude and the number of sites with detectable postsynaptic GABA_A receptors, supporting coordinated changes in postsynaptic strength and functional inhibitory synapse number. It also says total presynaptic contacts were unchanged. The paper does not establish a change in presynaptic release probability, so that part of the jointly cited claim is not supported by Kilman et al. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Inhibitory synapses onto pyramidal neurons are regulated in the opposite direction from excitatory synapses in response to a drop in activity or sensory drive, both in vitro and in vivo.

    “Further, it has been shown both in vitro and in vivo that inhibitory synapses onto pyramidal neurons are regulated in the opposite direction from excitatory synapses in response to a drop in activity or sensory drive (Kilman et al. 2002;Vale and Sanes 2002;Maffei et al. 2004;Hartman et al. 2006;Huupponen et al. 2007).”

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
Kilman, V., van Rossum, M. C. W., & Turrigiano, G. G.
Affiliations
Brandeis University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2002-02-15
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
1328-1337
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W4321429493
Cited by
362
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 18
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9726944)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
Keywords
activity deprivation, miniature IPSCs, GABAA receptor, synaptic inhibition, excitation-inhibition balance, inhibitory synapses, visual cortex, pyramidal neurons, synaptic plasticity, single-channel conductance

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