Adenosine A<sub>1</sub>and A<sub>2A</sub>receptors are not upstream of caffeine’s dopamine D<sub>2</sub>receptor‐dependent aversive effects and dopamine‐independent rewarding effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caffeine is widely consumed throughout the world, but little is known about the mechanisms underlying its rewarding and aversive properties. We show that pharmacological antagonism of dopamine not only blocks conditioned place aversion to caffeine, but also reveals dopamine blockade-induced conditioned place preferences. These aversive effects are mediated by the dopamine D(2) receptor, as knockout mice showed conditioned place preferences in response to doses of caffeine that C57Bl/6 mice found aversive. Furthermore, these aversive responses appear to be centrally mediated, as a quaternary analog of caffeine failed to produce conditioned place aversion. Although the adenosine A(2A) receptor is important for caffeine's physiological effects, this receptor seems only to modulate the appetitive and aversive effects of caffeine. A(2A) receptor knockout mice showed stronger dopamine-dependent aversive responses to caffeine than did C57Bl/6 mice, which partially obscured the dopamine-independent and A(2A) receptor-independent preferences. Additionally, the A(1) receptor, alone or in combination with the A(2A) receptor, does not seem to be important for caffeine's rewarding or aversive effects. Finally, excitotoxic lesions of the tegmental pedunculopontine nucleus revealed that this brain region is not involved in dopamine blockade-induced caffeine reward. These data provide surprising new information on the mechanism of action of caffeine, indicating that adenosine receptors do not mediate caffeine's appetitive and aversive effects. We show that caffeine has an atypical reward mechanism, independent of the dopaminergic system and the tegmental pedunculopontine nucleus, and provide additional evidence in support of a role for the dopaminergic system in aversive learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".