MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain-Stimulation Reward Thresholds Raised by an Antisense Oligonucleotide for the M5 Muscarinic Receptor Infused near Dopamine Cells

2000· article· en· W1886006583 on OpenAlexaff
John S. Yeomans, Junichi Takeuchi, Marco A. S. Baptista, Donna D. Flynn, Karen Lepik, José N. Nóbrega, James Fulton, Martin R. Ralph

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMuscarinic acetylcholine receptorVentral tegmental areaStimulationDopamineTegmentumEndocrinologyReceptorMuscarinic acetylcholine receptor M1NeuroscienceInternal medicineChemistryBiologyPsychologyMedicineCentral nervous systemMidbrainDopaminergic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oligonucleotides targeting M5 muscarinic receptor mRNA were infused for 6 d into the ventral tegmental area of freely behaving rats trained to bar-press for lateral hypothalamic stimulation. The bar-pressing rate was determined at a range of frequencies each day to evaluate the effects of infusions on reward. M5 antisense oligonucleotide (oligo) infusions increased the frequency required for bar pressing by 48% over baseline levels, with the largest increases occurring after 4-6 d of infusion. Two control oligos had only slight effects (means of 5 and 11% for missense and sense oligos, respectively). After the infusion, the required frequency shifted back to baseline levels gradually over 1-5 d. Antisense oligo infusions decreased M5 receptors on the ipsilateral, but not the contralateral, side of the ventral tegmentum, as compared with a missense oligo. Therefore, M5 muscarinic receptors associated with mesolimbic dopamine neurons seem to be important in brain-stimulation reward.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations71
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207