Findings from an increasingly large number of studies have been used to argue that attentional capture can be dependent on the learned value of a stimulus, or value-driven. However, under certain circumstances attention can be biased to select stimuli that previously served as targets, independent of reward history. Value-driven attentional capture, as studied using the training phase-test phase design introduced by Anderson and colleagues, is widely presumed to reflect the combined influence of learned value and selection history. However, the degree to which attentional capture is at all dependent on value learning in this paradigm has recently been questioned. Support for value-dependence can be provided through one of two means: (1) greater attentional capture by prior targets following rewarded training than following unrewarded training, and (2) greater attentional capture by prior targets previously associated with high compared to low value. Using a variant of the original value-driven attentional capture paradigm, Sha and Jiang (2016) failed to find evidence of either, and raised criticisms regarding the adequacy of evidence provided by prior studies using this particular paradigm. To address this disparity, here we provided a stringent test of the value-dependence hypothesis using the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm. With a sufficiently large sample size, value-dependence was observed based on both criteria, with no evidence of attentional capture without rewards during training. Our findings support the validity of the traditional value-driven attentional capture paradigm in measuring what its name purports to measure.
NRXN1
undergoes extensive alternative splicing, and non-recurrent heterozygous deletions in
NRXN1
are strongly associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. We establish that human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived neurons represent well the diversity of
NRXN1α
alternative splicing observed in the human brain, cataloguing 123 high-confidence in-frame human
NRXN1α
isoforms. Patient-derived
NRXN1
+/−
hiPSC-neurons show greater than two-fold reduction of half of the wild-type
NRXN1α
isoforms and express dozens of novel isoforms expressed from the mutant allele. Reduced neuronal activity in patient-derived
NRXN1
+/−
hiPSC-neurons is ameliorated by overexpression of individual control isoforms in a genotype-dependent manner, whereas individual mutant isoforms decrease neuronal activity levels in control hiPSC-neurons. In a genotype-dependent manner, the phenotypic impact of patient-specific
NRXN1
+/−
mutations can occur through a reduction in wild-type
NRXN1α
isoform levels as well as the presence of mutant
NRXN1α
isoforms.
Genetic and genomic studies of brain disease increasingly demonstrate disease-associated interactions between the cell types of the brain. Increasingly complex and more physiologically relevant human-induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-based models better explore the molecular mechanisms underlying disease but also challenge our ability to resolve cell type-specific perturbations. Here, we report an extension of the RiboTag system, first developed to achieve cell type-restricted expression of epitope-tagged ribosomal protein (RPL22) in mouse tissue, to a variety of in vitro applications, including immortalized cell lines, primary mouse astrocytes, and hiPSC-derived neurons. RiboTag expression enables depletion of up to 87 percent of off-target RNA in mixed species co-cultures. Nonetheless, depletion efficiency varies across independent experimental replicates, particularly for hiPSC-derived motor neurons. The challenges and potential of implementing RiboTags in complex in vitro cultures are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.