Physiological Evidence for the Existence of Prolactin Releasing Factor: Stress-Induced Prolactin Secretion Is not Linked to Dopaminergic Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were undertaken to demonstrate the existence of a physiological role of prolactin releasing factor (PRF). Hypothalamic control of prolactin secretion is achieved by secretion of prolactin inhibiting factor (PIF) and/or PRF. Since the putative PIF is dopamine, complete blockage of the dopaminergic PIF receptors should permit demonstration of PRF activity. The changes in prolactin concentration were monitored by taking a blood sample every 2 min through an indwelling atrial cannula. An excessive amount of pimozide (3 mg/kg) was used to block dopaminergic receptors and prolactin concentration was elevated as a result. This higher concentration of circulating prolactin was maintained for more than 30 h after a bolus injection of pimozide. In this situation, lacking functional dopaminergic PIF receptors, there were fluctuations in the circulating prolactin concentration throughout the experiment. If, after pimozide administration, rats were exposed to an acute (ether) stress, the stress consistently elevated the circulating prolactin concentration. Since there are no functional dopaminergic PIF receptors available under these conditions, a dopaminergic PIF cannot be involved in producing the prolactin surge induced by the acute stress. Therefore, these results suggest that a physiological PRF is involved in the generation of this prolactin surge, through the evidence is not direct.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".