MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994152334 · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.012

Depressive-like behaviour of mice lacking cellular prion protein

2011· article· en· W1994152334 on OpenAlexaff
Vinícius M. Gadotti, Stephan Bonfield, Gerald W. Zamponi

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural Brain Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersFondation pour la Recherche Médicale
KeywordsTail suspension testBehavioural despair testKnockout mouseImipramineAntidepressantNeuroscienceNMDA receptorAntagonistPsychologyMood disordersReceptorBiologyPharmacologyInternal medicinePsychiatryMedicinePathologyHippocampus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellular Prion Protein (PrP(C)) is known to mediate a protective role in several neurological conditions such as ischemia and epilepsy. However, so far, little information is available concerning the role of PrP(C) in psychiatric disorders such as depression. Here, we have used PrP(C) null mice to examine a putative role of PrP(C) in depressive-like states. Prion protein null mice exhibited depressive-like behaviour when compared to wild-type mice in both the Forced Swimming Test (FST) and Tail Suspension Test (TST). The clinical antidepressant drug imipramine and the NMDA receptor antagonist MK-801 reversed the depressive-like behaviour observed for knockout mice in the TST. The present data thus indicate that PrP(C) exerts a critical role in modulating the depressive-like state in mice, reinforcing the notion that PrP(C) might be associated with alterations in mood disorder states, and suggests a possible role of PrP(C) as a potential drug target for treating depressive disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBehavioural Brain ResearchSame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207