Blockade of AMPA Receptors and Volatile Anesthetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid (AMPA) subtype of glutamate receptor mediates fast excitatory neurotransmission in the central nervous system. Many general anesthetics inhibit AMPA receptors in vitro; however, it is not certain if this inhibition contributes to the behavioral properties of these drugs. AMPA receptors lacking the GluR2 subunit are resistant to blockade by barbiturates in vitro. Paradoxically, GluR2 null mutant (-/-) mice are more sensitive to barbiturate-induced loss of the righting reflex (LORR) compared with wild-type (+/+) littermates. To determine if interactions between anesthetics and AMPA receptors account for the increased sensitivity of (-/-) mice, the effects of volatile anesthetics that do not directly inhibit AMPA receptors were examined. METHODS: Isoflurane, halothane, desflurane, or sevoflurane were administered to (-/-) and (+/+) littermate controls. Anesthetic requirements for LORR, movement to tail clamp (minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]), and hind-paw withdrawal latency (HPWL) were determined. Electrophysiologic methods examined the inhibition of AMPA receptors by isoflurane and halothane. RESULTS: Anesthetic requirements for LORR and HPWL were decreased, whereas MAC values were unchanged in (-/-) mice. Isoflurane and halothane caused minimal inhibition of AMPA receptors at clinically relevant concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Direct blockade of AMPA receptors did not account for the increased sensitivity to volatile anesthetics in GluR2 null mutant mice for HPWL or LORR. Thus, the deficiency of GluR2-containing AMPA receptors increases the sensitivity of neuronal circuitry mediating these end points, but not MAC. GluR2-containing receptors do not contribute appreciably to MAC in this mouse model. These results illustrate the difficulties in attributing behavioral responses to drug-receptor interactions in genetically engineered animals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".