Amphetamine‐sensitized animals show a marked increase in dopamine D<sub>2</sub> high receptors occupied by endogenous dopamine, even in the absence of acute challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a range of dopamine D(2)-related behaviors are exaggerated in amphetamine-sensitized animals, studies of the dopamine D(2) receptor have reported either no change or a decrease in dopamine D(2) receptor density--especially when measured using radioraclopride. We hypothesized that a decrease in D(2) receptors may actually be "apparent" and that these receptors may still be present, but are noncompetitively "occupied" by endogenous dopamine. Animals sensitized to amphetamine (and their saline controls) were examined 4 weeks after their last injection. We first measured the [(3)H]raclopride binding in vivo, and observed that sensitized animals showed a 29% lower level of raclopride binding in vivo, suggesting an apparently lower level of dopamine D(2) receptors. To assess the reason for this we examined the density of receptors (using Scatchard analysis in vitro) measured by [(3)H]raclopride in the presence and absence of guanilylimidodiphosphate. This guanine nucleotide converts the dopamine-bound high-affinity state of D(2) receptors into low-affinity states, thereby making measurable the absolute density of the sites. As previously reported, the amphetamine-sensitized animals showed a 31% lower number of D(2) receptors in conventional binding (B(max) 15.6 vs. 22.7 pmol/g). However, with the addition of guanilylimidodiphosphate there was an equalization of both groups (B(max) 25.9 vs. 25.6 pmol/g), revealing an additional 10.3 pmol/g in the sensitized animals, but only 2.9 pmol/g in saline controls. There were no changes in the dissociation constant of [(3)H]raclopride for the receptors. The nearly four-fold increase of dopamine D(2) receptors in the high-affinity state occupied by dopamine may explain why amphetamine-sensitized animals show almost an order of magnitude greater response to dopamine-releasing challenges or dopamine agonists, even though the absolute receptor number is unchanged and the "apparent" receptor number is decreased.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".