Effects of Intrathecal Glutamatergic Drugs on Locomotion. II. NMDA and AP-5 in Intact and Late Spinal Cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a previous article, we have shown that, in cats, intrathecal injections of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) in the first few days after spinalization at T13 do not induce locomotion as in many other spinal preparations. This is in contrast to alpha-2 noradrenergic receptor stimulation, which can trigger locomotion at this early stage. However, it is known that spinal cats do recover spontaneous locomotion in the absence of descending noradrenergic pathways and that the spinal pattern generator must then depend on other neurotransmitters still present in the cord such as excitatory amino acids. In the present paper, therefore we look at the effects of intrathecal NMDA, a glutamatergic agonist, and 2-amino-5-phosphonovaleric acid (AP-5), an NMDA receptor blocker, in both intact and late spinal cats. Low doses of NMDA had no major effect on the locomotor pattern in both intact and late spinal cats. Larger doses of NMDA in the chronic spinal cat initially produced an increase in the general excitability followed by more regular locomotion. AP-5 in intact cats caused a decrease in the amplitude of the flexion reflex and induced a bilateral foot drag as well as some decrease in weight support but it did not prevent locomotion. However, in late spinal cats, the same dose of AP-5 blocked locomotion completely. These results indicate that NMDA receptors may be critical for the spontaneous expression of spinal locomotion. It is proposed that the basic locomotor rhythmicity in cats is NMDA-dependent and that normally this glutamatergic mechanism is modulated by other neurotransmitters, such as 5-HT and NA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".