Expression of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor in the gymnotiform fish brain and its implications for the organization of the teleost pallium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannabinoid CB1 receptors (CB1R) are widely distributed in the brains of many vertebrates, but whether their functions are conserved is unknown. The weakly electric fish, Apteronotus leptorhynchus (Apt), has been well studied for its brain structure, behavior, sensory processing, and learning and memory. It therefore offers an attractive model for comparative studies of CB1R functions. We sequenced partial AptCB1R mRNAs and performed in situ hybridization to localize its expression. Partial AptCB1R protein sequence was highly conserved to zebrafish (90.7%) and mouse (81.9%) orthologs. AptCB1R mRNA was highly expressed in the telencephalon. Subpallial neurons (dorsal, central, intermediate regions and part of the ventral region, Vd/Vc/Vi, and Vv) expressed high levels of AptCB1R transcript. The central region of dorsocentral telencephalon (DC(core) ) strongly expressed CB1R mRNA; cells in DC(core) project to midbrain regions involved in electrosensory/visual function. The lateral and rostral regions of DC surrounding DC(core) (DC(shell) ) lack AptCB1R mRNA. The rostral division of the dorsomedial telencephalon (DM1) highly expresses AptCB1R mRNA. In dorsolateral division (DL) AptCB1R mRNA was expressed in a gradient that declined in a rostrocaudal manner. In diencephalon, AptCB1R RNA probe weakly stained the central-posterior (CP) and prepacemaker (PPn) nuclei. In mesencephalon, AptCB1R mRNA is expressed in deep layers of the dorsal (electrosensory) torus semicircularis (TSd). In hindbrain, AptCB1R RNA probe weakly labeled inhibitory interneurons in the electrosensory lateral line lobe (ELL). Unlike mammals, only few cerebellar granule cells expressed AptCB1R transcripts and these were located in the center of eminentia granularis pars posterior (EGp), a cerebellar region involved in feedback to ELL.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".