Elevated dopamine D2<sup>High</sup> receptors in α‐1b‐adrenoceptor knockout supersensitive mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although amphetamine induces hyperactivity by releasing dopamine (DA), mice that lack alpha1b-adrenoceptors do not release DA in response to amphetamine and do not, therefore, exhibit locomotor supersensitivity to amphetamine. However, such mice reveal hyperlocomotion to p-chloroamphetamine (PCA). Because these alpha1b-adrenoceptor knockout mice have no alterations in the striatal densities of DA D1 or D2 receptors, the basis for any possible dopaminergic contribution to the PCA-induced hyperlocomotion to PCA is unclear. Therefore, because supersensitive animals are generally known to have a higher proportion of DA D2 receptors in the high-affinity state for DA D2(High), we investigated whether there was any change in the alpha1b-adrenoceptor knockout striata in the proportion of DA D2(High) receptors to determine whether there could be a DA-based contribution to the PCA-induced hyperlocomotion. We found that the proportion of D2(High) in the wild type striata was 23 +/- 3.3%, whereas that in the alpha1b-adrenoceptor knockout striata was 52 +/- 2.9%, an increase of 2.3-fold. This elevation agrees with other types of DA-supersensitive animal striata and could assist in eliciting a supersensitive response in these alpha1b-adrenoceptor knockout mice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".