Binding characteristics and sensitivity to endogenous dopamine of [<sup>11</sup>C]‐(+)‐PHNO, a new agonist radiotracer for imaging the high‐affinity state of D<sub>2</sub> receptors <i>in vivo</i> using positron emission tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[11C]-(+)-PHNO (4-propyl-9-hydroxynaphthoxazine) is a new agonist radioligand that provides a unique opportunity to measure the high-affinity states of the D2 receptors (D2-high) using positron emission tomography (PET). Here we report on the distribution, displaceablity, specificity and modeling of [11C]-(+)-PHNO and compare it with the well characterized antagonist D2 radioligand, [11C]raclopride, in cat. [11C]-(+)-PHNO displayed high uptake in striatum with a mean striatal binding potential (BP) of 3.95 +/- 0.85. Pre-treatment with specific D1 (SCH23390), D2 (raclopride, haloperidol) and D3 receptor (SB-277011) antagonists indicated that [11C]-(+)-PHNO binding in striatum is specific to D2 receptors. Within-subject comparisons showed that [11C]-(+)-PHNO BP in striatum was almost 2.5-fold higher than that measured with [11C]-(-)-NPA ([11C]-(-)-N-propyl-norapomorphine). Comparison of the dose-effect of amphetamine (0.1, 0.5 and 2 mg/kg; i.v.) showed that [11C]-(+)-PHNO was more sensitive to the dopamine releasing effect of amphetamine than [11C]raclopride. Amphetamine induced up to 83 +/- 4% inhibition of [11C]-(+)-PHNO BP and only up to 56 +/- 8% inhibition of [11C]raclopride BP. Scatchard analyses of [11C]-(+)-PHNO and [11C]raclopride bindings in two cats showed that the Bmax obtained with the agonist (29.6 and 32.9 pmol/mL) equalled that obtained with the antagonist (30.6 and 33.4 pmol/mL). The high penetration of [11C]-(+)-PHNO in brain, its high signal-to-noise ratio, its favorable in vivo kinetics and its high sensitivity to amphetamine shows that [11C]-(+)-PHNO has highly suitable characteristics for probing the D2-high with PET.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".