Cited by 177Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural MechanismsTreatment of Major Depression

Multiple Mechanisms for the Potentiation of AMPA Receptor-Mediated Transmission by α-Ca2+/Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinase II

Open access
Poncer, Jean Christophe, Esteban, José A., Malinow, Roberto·2002·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Some forms of activity-dependent synaptic potentiation require the activation of postsynaptic Ca(2+)/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII). Activation of CaMKII has been shown to phosphorylate the glutamate receptor 1 subunit of the AMPA receptor (AMPAR), thereby affecting some of the properties of the receptor. Here, a recombinant, constitutively active form of alphaCaMKII tagged with the fluorescent marker green fluorescent protein (GFP) [alphaCaMKII(1-290)-enhanced GFP (EGFP)] was expressed in CA1 pyramidal neurons from hippocampal slices. The changes in glutamatergic transmission onto these cells were analyzed. AMPA but not NMDA receptor-mediated EPSCs were specifically potentiated in infected compared with nearby noninfected neurons. This potentiation was associated with a reduction in the proportion of synapses devoid of AMPARs. In addition, expression of alphaCaMKII(1-290)-EGFP increased the quantal size of AMPAR-mediated responses. This effect reflected, at least in part, an increased unitary conductance of the channels underlying the EPSCs. These results reveal that several key features of long-term potentiation of hippocampal glutamatergic synapses are reproduced by the sole activity of alphaCaMKII.

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.22-11-04406.2002

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Expression of active CaMKII or direct delivery into the cell via the recording electrode has repeatedly revealed a roughly two- to threefold enhancement in the AMPAR EPSC but little change in the NMDAR EPSC.

    “Expression of active CaMKII (121, 130–132, 209, 210, 212) or direct delivery into the cell via the recording electrode (199) has repeatedly revealed a roughly two- to threefold enhancement in the AMPAR EPSC but little change in the NMDAR EPSC (130–132).”

    From Synaptic memory and CaMKII (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Results (Fig. 2; page not specified in our copy) report that expression of active αCaMKII increased AMPAR EPSCs to 3.73 ± 0.9 times control, with no significant change in NMDAR EPSCs. This supports the selective enhancement, but the reported mean is above the claimed roughly two- to threefold range. The recording-electrode delivery method is cited separately in the citing sentence, not attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The number of NMDARs does not change during LTP, since constitutively active CaMKII does not affect the NMDAR EPSC and LTP is expressed primarily on the AMPAR.

    “The number of NMDARs does not change, since constitutively active CaMKII does not affect the NMDAR EPSC (130–132) and LTP is expressed primarily on the AMPAR (19).”

    From Synaptic memory and CaMKII (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Results (Figure 2) report that constitutively active αCaMKII increased AMPAR EPSCs without a significant change in NMDAR EPSCs. The paper does not establish from that measurement that the number of NMDARs remains unchanged during LTP. The separate statement about LTP being expressed primarily on AMPARs is cited to another source in the printed sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • NMDAR-dependent LTP is the result of increased AMPAR density in the post-synaptic membrane and/or single channel conductance of the AMPAR.

    “The major form of LTP identified in the brain, NMDAR-dependent LTP, is the result of increased AMPAR density in the post-synaptic membrane and/or single channel conductance of the AMPAR (Huganir and Nicoll, 2013, Herring and Nicoll, 2016, Poncer et al., 2002, Benke et al., 1998).”

    From The AMPA Receptor Code of Synaptic Plasticity (2018) · cites this paper as Poncer et al., 2002

    The introductory passage and Discussion describe increased synaptic AMPAR number and channel conductance as mechanisms associated with LTP in CA1 hippocampal neurons. The paper does not establish that these mechanisms explain NMDAR-dependent LTP throughout the brain; its own experiments test whether activated CaMKII mimics LTP-related effects in CA1 neurons. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Overexpression of constitutively active CaMKII has little effect on synaptic NMDAR responses.

    “overexpression of constitutively active CaMKII has little effect on synaptic NMDAR responses (130–132).”

    From Synaptic memory and CaMKII (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

  • Overexpression of PSD-95 potentiates AMPAR EPSCs and occludes LTP, and the S73D mutant causes similar potentiation.

    “since overexpression of PSD-95 on its own potentiates AMPAR EPSCs and occludes LTP (131, 297, 298) and the S73D mutant causes a similar potentiation.”

    From Synaptic memory and CaMKII (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

    The Results (Figure 2) attribute increased AMPAR EPSCs to expression of activated αCaMKII, not PSD-95. Searches for PSD-95 overexpression, LTP occlusion, and the S73D mutant found no passage addressing those claims in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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
Poncer, J. C., Esteban, J. A., & Malinow, R.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
4406-4411
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1756593109
Cited by
177
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
CaMKIIα, AMPA receptors, synaptic potentiation, long-term potentiation, CA1 pyramidal neurons, hippocampus, glutamatergic synapses, quantal size, single-channel conductance, activity-dependent synaptic plasticity, NMDA receptor
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Hippocampus, Luminescent Proteins, Male, Synaptic Transmission, Neuronal Plasticity, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, Sindbis Virus, Gene Expression, Long-Term Potentiation, Calcium-Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinases, Pyramidal Cells, Receptors, AMPA, Patch-Clamp Techniques, Transgenes, Excitatory Postsynaptic Potentials, Rats, Calcium-Calmodulin-Dependent Protein Kinase Type 2, In Vitro Techniques

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