Blockade of mGLUR5 receptors differentially alters amphetamine-induced enhancement of locomotor activity and of brain stimulation reward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was aimed at determining the role of mGLUR5 glutamate receptors on amphetamine-induced enhancement of locomotion and of brain stimulation reward (BSR). The effect of different doses of the mGLUR5 antagonist, MPEP (0, 1, 3 and 9 mg/kg, i.p.), was assessed on reward induced by electrical stimulation of the lateral hypothalamus, and on the enhancement of reward by amphetamine (1 mg/kg, i.p.) in adult male Long Evans rats. The effect of a single dose of MPEP (0 and 9 mg/kg) on amphetamine-induced increase in locomotor activity was also assessed. Systemic injection of MPEP alone did not alter reward threshold and maximum rate of responding. Amphetamine produced a 25-30% decrease in reward threshold, an effect not altered by the highest dose of MPEP. At this dose, MPEP produced a weak inhibition of spontaneous locomotion and a significant attenuation of the enhanced locomotor activity induced by amphetamine. These findings show that mGLUR5 glutamate receptors are unlikely to constitute important elements of the reward-relevant pathway, and do not intervene in the enhancement effect of amphetamine. They also show, however, that these glutamate receptors play a key role in amphetamine-induced increased locomotor activity, providing additional evidence for a dissociation between the substrates that mediate these two behaviours.
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".