↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
All for One But Not One for All: Excitatory Synaptic Scaling and Intrinsic Excitability Are Coregulated by CaMKIV, Whereas Inhibitory Synaptic Scaling Is Under Independent Control
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.0618-17.2017
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Neocortical circuits utilize a family of homeostatic plasticity mechanisms to stabilize firing, including excitatory and inhibitory synaptic scaling and homeostatic intrinsic plasticity (Turrigiano and Nelson, 2004). All three mechanisms can be induced in tandem in cultured rat neocortical pyramidal neurons by chronic manipulations of firing, but it is unknown whether they are co-induced by the same activity-sensors and signaling pathways, or whether they are under independent control. CaMKIV is a key sensory/effector in excitatory synaptic scaling that senses perturbations in firing through changes in calcium influx, and translates this into compensatory changes in excitatory quantal amplitude (Goold and Nicoll, 2010; Ibata et al., 2008). Whether CaMKIV also controls inhibitory synaptic scaling and intrinsic homeostatic plasticity was unknown. To test this we manipulated CaMKIV signaling in individual neurons using dominant-negative (dn) or constitutively-active (ca) forms of nuclear-localized CaMKIV and measured the induction of all three forms of homeostatic plasticity. We found that excitatory synaptic scaling and intrinsic plasticity were bidirectionally co-induced by these manipulations. In contrast, these cell-autonomous manipulations had no impact on inhibitory quantal amplitude. Finally, we found that spontaneous firing rates were shifted up or down by dnCaMKIV or caCaMKIV, respectively, suggesting that uncoupling CaMKIV activation from activity generates an error signal in the negative feedback mechanism that controls firing rates. Taken together, our data show that excitatory synaptic scaling and intrinsic excitability are tightly coordinated through bidirectional changes in the same signaling pathway, while inhibitory synaptic scaling is sensed and regulated through an independent control mechanism.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTMaintaining stable function in highly interconnected neural circuits is essential for preventing circuit disorders, and is accomplished through a set of negative feedback mechanisms that sense and compensate for perturbations in activity. These "homeostatic" mechanisms can target synaptic excitation, synaptic inhibition, and intrinsic excitability, but whether they are independently controlled is not known. We find that synaptic excitation and intrinsic excitability are coregulated in individual neurons through CaMKIV signaling, which is tightly controlled by neuronal activity. In contrast, synaptic inhibition is unaffected by changes in firing or CaMKIV signaling in individual neurons. These results show that circuit stability is controlled both through cell-autonomous mechanisms that regulate some aspects of excitability, as well as circuit -level mechanisms that adjust inhibition.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 23%
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Professor 9 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 52 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 34 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,516,185
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#5,832
of 23,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,483
of 365,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#86
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.