Direct interactions between NMDA and D1 receptors: a tale of tails
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable evidence has accumulated describing a complex interaction between the dopaminergic and glutamatergic pathways. Efforts to describe the mechanisms underlying this complex interaction have implicated a functional interaction between dopamine and glutamate receptors. Classically, the interaction between D(1) and NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartate) receptors has been proposed to involve the activation of second-messenger signalling cascades after receptor stimulation. However, in recent years, another paradigm has emerged which involves the direct interaction between D(1) and NMDA receptors. The physical association between D(1) and NMDA receptors is unique in that two different regions of the D(1) C-terminus are able to couple specifically and physically with two different NMDA subunits. The selective modulation of multiple NMDA receptor-mediated functions by direct interactions with D(1) receptors may form a new avenue to identify specific targets for therapeutics to modulate NMDA receptor-governed synaptic plasticity, neuronal development and disease states.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".