MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1790791012 · doi:10.1113/jp270914

Inhibitory respiratory responses to progesterone and allopregnanolone in newborn rats chronically treated with caffeine

2015· article· en· W1790791012 on OpenAlexafffund
NagaPraveena Uppari, Vincent Joseph, Aïda Bairam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAllopregnanoloneCaffeineInhibitory postsynaptic potentialEndocrinologyInternal medicineRespiratory systemMedicineChemistryPharmacologyNeuroactive steroidReceptorGABAA receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS: In premature newborns, recurrent apnoea is systematically treated with caffeine to prevent long-term neurocognitive disorders, but a substantial percentage of apnoea persists particularly in neonates born before 28 weeks of gestation. Progesterone has been proposed as a respiratory stimulant potentially suitable for the treatment of newborn apnoea persistent to caffeine. Accordingly we asked whether acute progesterone administration reduces apnoea frequency in newborn rats treated with caffeine. Surprisingly our results show that in newborn rats treated with caffeine, administration of progesterone inhibits breathing and increases apnoea frequency. Additional experiments showed an enhanced GABAergic inhibitory drive on breathing after caffeine treatment, and that progesterone is converted to allopregnanolone (an allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors) to inhibit breathing. We conclude that combining progesterone and chronic caffeine is not an option in preterm neonates, unless the effects of allopregnanolone can be counteracted. ABSTRACT: Caffeine is the main treatment for apnoea in preterm neonates, but its interactions with other respiratory stimulants like progesterone are unknown. We tested the hypothesis that the addition of progesterone to caffeine treatments further stimulates ventilation. Newborn rats were treated with water (control) or caffeine (15 mg kg(-1)) by daily gavage between postnatal day (P)3 and P12. At P4 and P12, we measured apnoea frequency, ventilatory responses and metabolic parameters under both normoxia and hypoxia (12% O2, 20 min) following an acute administration of either saline or progesterone (4 mg kg(-1); i.p.). Progesterone injection increased the serum levels of both progesterone and its neuroactive metabolite allopregnanolone. Progesterone had no effect on ventilation in control rats under normoxia. Progesterone depressed ventilation in P12 caffeine-treated rats under normoxia and hypoxia and increased apnoea frequency in both P4 and P12 rats. Because allopregnanolone is an allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors and caffeine may enhance GABAergic inhibition in newborns, we studied the effects of the GABAA receptor antagonist bicuculline at 0, 1, 2 and 3 mg kg(-1) doses and allopregnanolone (10 mg kg(-1) dose) in P12 rats. In caffeine-treated rats, bicuculline enhanced ventilation, while allopregnanolone decreased ventilation and increased total apnoea time. Progesterone had no effect on ventilation and apnoea frequency in caffeine-treated rats injected with finasteride, which blocks the conversion of progesterone to allopregnanolone. We conclude that combining progesterone and chronic caffeine therapy is not an option for the treatment of persistent apnoea in preterm neonates, unless the effects of allopregnanolone can be counteracted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207