Estrogenic Properties of Raloxifene, but Not Tamoxifen, on D<sub>2</sub> and D<sub>3</sub> Dopamine Receptors in the Rat Forebrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the estrogenic specificity of the modulation of dopamine D(2) and D(3) receptors by comparing the effects of estradiol with tamoxifen or raloxifene. These compounds have estrogenic and/or antiestrogenic activity depending on the target tissue. Two weeks after ovariectomy of female rats, we observed a 60% decrease in the uterine weight, which was prevented by a replacement therapy of 2 weeks with 17beta-estradiol. A tamoxifen or raloxifene treatment of 2 weeks increased uterine weights by 35 and 15%, respectively, but significantly less than estradiol treatment. Ovariectomy decreased dopamine D(2) receptor specific binding (20%) in the dorsolateral part of the anterior striatum and these receptors were left unchanged in the other parts of the striatum as well as in the olfactory tubercle and the nucleus accumbens. 17beta-Estradiol and raloxifene, but not tamoxifen treatment prevented this decrease. Ovariectomy left dopamine D(3) receptor specific binding unchanged. However, estradiol and raloxifene treatment decreased dopamine D(3) receptor binding in the islands of Calleja, the core and shell of the nucleus accumbens and the dorsal part of the anterior striatum, compared with ovariectomized rats. Our results show that raloxifene, but not tamoxifen, has an agonist estrogenic activity on dopamine receptors. Furthermore, estradiol and raloxifene have opposite effects on specific binding to dopamine D(2) and D(3) 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 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".