Altered organization of GABAA receptor mRNA expression in the depressed suicide brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inter-relationships ordinarily exist between mRNA expression of GABA(A) subunits in the frontopolar cortex (FPC) of individuals that had died suddenly from causes other than suicide. However, these correlations were largely absent in persons that had died by suicide. In the present investigation, these findings were extended by examining GABA(A) receptor expression patterns (of controls and depressed individuals that died by suicide) in the orbital frontal cortex (OFC), hippocampus, amygdala. locus coeruleus (LC) and paraventricular nucleus (PVN), all of which have been implicated in either depression, anxiety or stress responsivity. Using QPCR analysis, we found that in controls the inter-relations between GABA(A) subunits varied across brain regions, being high in the hippocampus and amygdala, intermediate in the LC, and low in the OFC and PVN. The GABA(A) subunit inter-relations were markedly different in persons that died by suicide, being reduced in hippocampus and amygdala, stable in the LC, but more coordinated in the OFC and to some extent in the PVN. It seems that altered brain region-specific inhibitory signaling, stemming from altered GABA(A) subunit coordination, are associated with depression/suicide. Although, it is unknown whether GABA(A) subunit re-organization was specifically tied to depression, suicide, or the accompanying distress, these data show that the coordinated expression of this transcriptome does vary depending on brain region and is plastic.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".