Differential Expression and Pharmacology of Native P2X Receptors in Rat and Primate Sensory Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggesting the involvement of P2X2 and P2X3 in chronic pain has been obtained mostly from rodent models. Here we show that rodents may be poor predictors of P2X3 pharmacology in human. We demonstrate that monkey and human dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons do not express appreciable levels of P2X2 subunit, contrary to rat sensory neurons. Additionally, we report functional P2X3 activity in monkey DRG neurons and confirm the absence of functional P2X2/3 receptors. Interestingly, native P2X3 receptors in rat and monkey DRGs show similar agonist potency, but different antagonist potencies for TNP-ATP [2-O-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl)-ATP] and RO51. This unexpected difference in antagonist potency was confirmed by comparing rat and human P2X3 receptors in HEK293 cells. Mutagenesis studies reveal that two extracellular residues, A197 and T202, are synergistically responsible for the potency drop in primate P2X3 receptors. These results uncover species-specific P2X3 pharmacology and identify key mechanisms impacting the translatability of potential analgesics targeting P2X3 receptors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".