MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002168903 · doi:10.1159/000117577

Neuropeptide W Influences the Excitability of Neurons in the Rat Hypothalamic Arcuate Nucleus

2008· article· en· W2002168903 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Price, Willis K. Samson, Alastair V. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Parks and Wildlife ServiceNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDepolarizationHyperpolarization (physics)Internal medicineEndocrinologyArcuate nucleusSomatostatinTetrodotoxinNeuropeptidePatch clampHypothalamusNeuronChemistryMembrane potentialBiologyReceptorNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuropeptide W (NPW) is a ligand of the recently deorphaned receptor GPR7. Intracerebroventricular injection of this peptide results in reduced serum growth hormone concentration. Using whole-cell patch clamp recordings from somatostatin (SS) neurons in the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus, identified post-hoc using single-cell RT-PCR, we investigated the effects of NPW on membrane excitability. NPW application in acute slices of the arcuate nucleus resulted in the depolarization of the majority (62.5%) of the SS neurons tested, while smaller proportions of cells showed hyperpolarization or no response. Both the depolarization and hyperpolarization of arcuate SS neurons were preserved during recordings where voltage-gated sodium channels were blocked with tetrodotoxin, suggesting direct effects of NPW on the excitability of SS neurons. The observed depolarization of the majority of the SS neurons tested suggests that the central effects of NPW to inhibit growth hormone release results from activation of arcuate SS neurons, which could result in an inhibition of GHRH-releasing neurons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicRegulation of Appetite and ObesityFrench-language works237,207