Circadian clock resetting by arousal in Syrian hamsters: the role of stress and activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circadian rhythms in the Syrian hamster can be markedly phase shifted by 3 h of wheel running or arousal stimulation during their usual daily rest period ("subjective day"). Continuous wheel running is predictive but not necessary for phase shifts of this "nonphotic" type; hamsters aroused by gentle handling without running can also show maximal shifts. By contrast, physical restraint, a standard stress procedure and thus presumably arousing, is ineffective. To resolve this apparent paradox, phase-shifting effects of 3-h sessions of restraint or other stress procedures were assessed. In a preliminary study, phase shifts to arousal by gentle handling were significantly potentiated by the cortisol synthesis inhibitor metyrapone, suggesting that stress-related cortisol release may inhibit phase shifts to arousal. Next, it was confirmed that restraint in the subjective day does not induce phase shifts, but behavioral observations revealed that it also does not sustain arousal. Restraint combined with noxious compressed air blasts did sustain arousal and induced a significant cortisol response compared with arousal by gentle handling but did not induce shifts. Restraint combined with continuous horizontal rotation was also ineffective, as was EEG-validated arousal via confinement to a pedestal over water. However, 3 h of resident-intruder interactions (an intense psychosocial stress) or exposure to an open field (a mild stress) did induce large shifts that were positively correlated with indexes of forward locomotion. The results indicate that large phase shifts associated with arousal in the usual sleep period are neither induced nor prevented by stress per se, but are dependent on the expression of at least low levels of locomotor activity. Sustained arousal alone is not sufficient.
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".