MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521523208 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0221

Clonidine potentiates the effects of tranylcypromine, phenelzine and two analogues in the forced swimming test in mice

2002· article· en· W1521523208 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michel Bourin, Martine Hascoët, Marc Colombel, Ronald T. Coutts, Glen B. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranylcyprominePhenelzineClonidinePharmacologyBehavioural despair testMedicineTest (biology)AnesthesiaPsychologyChemistryInternal medicineBiologyMonoamine oxidase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare tranylcypromine (TCP) and phenelzine (PLZ), two well-established inhibitors of monoamine oxidase (MAO), and 2 of their analogues, 4-fluorotranylcypromine (FTCP) and N2-acetylphenelzine (AcPLZ) respectively, with regard to effects in the forced swimming test, a behavioural test used to screen for potential antidepressant drugs. METHODS: Mice were dropped individually into glass cylinders containing water. The duration of their immobility was scored during the last 4 minutes of the test. RESULTS: Except for TCP at high doses, none of the drugs demonstrated activity when administered alone. All 4 drugs were active when given in combination with clonidine, an effect thought to be the result of mixed action at 5-HT1A and 5-HT2 receptors and the noradrenergic system. 5-HT18 receptors do not seem to be implicated, as lithium did not potentiate the effect of any of the drugs. Quinine activation of AcPLZ suggests that this analogue acts on 5-HT3 receptors. CONCLUSIONS: FTCP and AcPLZ demonstrated anti-immobility activity in the forced swimming test when used in association clonidine. These findings confirm previous neurochemical findings suggesting that these drugs have antidepressant properties.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207