MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Autoreceptor preference of dopamine D2 receptor agonists correlates with preferential coupling to cyclic AMP

2001· article· en· W2032099552 on OpenAlexaff
David Mercier, Pierre Falardeau, Daniel L vesque

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoreceptorDopamineSecond messenger systemDopamine receptor D2Postsynaptic potentialChemistryReceptorDopamine receptorEndocrinologyBiologyInternal medicineAgonistNeuroscienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine autoreceptors control the synaptic release and turnover of dopamine. Some dopamine agonists display a preference for modulation of autoreceptor functions rather than postsynaptic-driven behaviors. However, the nature of this apparent selectivity is still elusive. To investigate this property, we have used an heterologous expression system in which D2S receptors are coupled to both inhibition of cyclic AMP levels and stimulation of inositol triphosphate production. We show that D2-like receptor agonists display distinct potencies on these two second messenger pathways. Moreover, a strong correlation is observed between the potency of agonists to interact with adenylate cyclase and their potency to modulate autoreceptor functions. Such a correlation does not show up with the phospholipase C pathway. This suggests that autoreceptor preference of D2-like receptor agonists may be driven by a preferential interaction with a second messenger system.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207