Monoaminergic Control of Cauda-Equina-Evoked Locomotion in the Neonatal Mouse Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monoaminergic projections are among the first supraspinal inputs to innervate spinal networks. Little is known regarding the role of monoamines in modulating ongoing locomotor patterns evoked by endogenous release of neurotransmitter. Here we activate a locomotor-like rhythm by electrical stimulation of afferents and then test the modulatory effects of monoamines on the frequency, pattern, and quality of the rhythm. Stimulation of the cauda equina induced a rhythm consisting of left-right and ipsilateral alternation indicative of locomotor-like activity. First, we examined the effects of noradrenaline (NA), serotonin (5-HT), or dopamine (DA) at dose levels that did not elicit locomotor activity. Bath application of NA and DA resulted in a depression of the cauda-equina-evoked rhythm. Conversely, bath-applied 5-HT increased both the amplitude and cycle period of the evoked rhythm, an effect that was mimicked by the addition of 5-HT(2) agonists to the bath. Application of 5-HT(7) agonists disrupted the evoked rhythmic behavior. Next, we examined the effects of NA alpha(1) and alpha(2) agonists and found that the suppressive effects of NA on the rhythm could be reproduced by adding the alpha(2) agonist, clonidine, to the bath. In contrast, bath applying the alpha(1) agonist, phenylephrine, increased the amplitude and duration of the cycle period. Finally, the suppressive effects of DA were not replicated by the administration of D(1), D(2), or D(3) agonists although application of NA alpha(2) antagonists reversed the effects of DA. Application of D(1) agonists, increased the amplitude of the bursts but did not affect the cycle period. Our results indicate that monoamines can control the expression, pattern, and timing of cauda-equina-evoked locomotor patterns in developing 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) | 0.000 | 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".