MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1549532936 · doi:10.1111/gbb.12030

The Yin and Yang of pain: variability in formalin test nociception and morphine analgesia produced by the Yin Yang 1 transcription factor gene

2013· article· en· W1549532936 on OpenAlexafffund
R. E. Sorge, Michael L. LaCroix‐Fralish, ALBERT H. TUTTLE, Arkady Khoutorsky, Susana G. Sotocinal, J.‐S. Austin, Kara Melmed, Stéphane Labialle, Jennifer V. Schmidt, John N. Wood, Anna K. Naumova, Jeffrey S. Mogil

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes Brain & Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersInstitute of GeneticsRIKENCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNociceptionDorsal root ganglionMorphineCongenicTranscription factorPhenotypeHyperalgesiaBiologyMedicineGenePharmacologyNeuroscienceInternal medicineSpinal cordGeneticsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently observed a reliable phenotypic difference in the inflammatory pain sensitivity of a congenic mouse strain compared to its background strain. By constructing and testing subcongenic strains combined with gene-expression assays, we provide evidence for the candidacy of the Yy1 gene - encoding the ubiquitously expressed and multifunctional Yin Yang 1 transcription factor - as responsible. To confirm this hypothesis, we used a Cre/lox strategy to produce mutant mice in which Yy1 expression was ablated in Nav 1.8-positive neurons of the dorsal root ganglion. These mutants also displayed reduced inflammatory pain sensitivity on the formalin test. Further testing of pain-related phenotypes in these mutants revealed robustly increased sensitivity to systemic and spinal (but not supraspinal) morphine analgesia, and greatly increased endogenous (swim stress-induced) opioid analgesia. None of the known biological roles of Yin Yang 1 were suggestive of such a phenotype, and thus a novel player in pain modulatory systems has been identified.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes Brain & BehaviorSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207