ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Cellular and circuit features distinguish dentate gyrus semilunar granule cells and granule cells activated during contextual memory formation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The dentate gyrus is critical for spatial memory formation and shows task related activation of cellular ensembles considered as memory engrams. Semilunar granule cells (SGCs), a sparse dentate projection neuron subtype distinct from granule cells (GCs), were recently reported to be enriched among behaviorally activated neurons. However, the mechanisms governing SGC recruitment during memory formation and their role in engram refinement remains unresolved. By examining neurons labeled during contextual memory formation in TRAP2 mice, we empirically tested competing hypotheses for GC and SGC recruitment into memory ensembles. In support of the proposal that more excitable neurons are preferentially recruited into memory ensembles, SGCs showed greater sustained firing than GCs. Additionally, SGCs labeled during memory formation showed less adapting firing than unlabeled SGCs. Our recordings did not reveal glutamatergic connections between behaviorally labeled SGCs and GCs, providing evidence against SGC driven local circuit feedforward excitation in ensemble recruitment. Contrary to a leading hypothesis, there was little evidence for individual SGCs or labeled neuronal ensembles supporting lateral inhibition of unlabeled neurons. Instead, labeled GCs and SGCs received more spontaneous excitatory synaptic inputs than their unlabeled counterparts. Moreover, pairs of GCs and SGCs within labeled neuronal cohorts received more temporally correlated spontaneous excitatory synaptic inputs than labeled-unlabeled neuronal pairs, validating a role for correlated afferent inputs in neuronal ensemble selection. These findings challenge the proposal that SGCs drive dentate GC ensemble refinement, while supporting a role for intrinsic active properties and correlated inputs in preferential SGC recruitment to contextual memory engrams.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.