Equivalent Occupancy of Dopamine D<sub>1</sub> and D<sub>2</sub> Receptors With Clozapine: Differentiation From Other Atypical Antipsychotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clozapine, the prototype of atypical antipsychotics, remains unique in its efficacy in the treatment of refractory schizophrenia. Its affinity for dopamine D(4) receptors, serotonin 5-HT(2A) receptor antagonism, effects on the noradrenergic system, and its relatively moderate occupancy of D(2) receptors are unlikely to be the critical mechanism underlying its efficacy. In an attempt to elucidate the molecular/synaptic mechanism underlying clozapine's distinctiveness in refractory schizophrenia, the authors studied the in vivo D(1) and D(2) receptor profile of clozapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. METHOD: Positron emission tomography with the radioligands [(11)C]SCH23390 and [(11)C]raclopride was used to investigate D(1) and D(2) receptor occupancy in vivo in 25 schizophrenia patients receiving atypical antipsychotic treatment with clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, or risperidone. RESULTS: Mean striatal D(1) occupancies ranged from 55% with clozapine to 12% with quetiapine (rank order: clozapine > olanzapine > risperidone > quetiapine). The striatal D(2) occupancy ranged from 81% with risperidone to 30% with quetiapine (rank order: risperidone > olanzapine > clozapine > quetiapine). The ratio of striatal D(1)/D(2) occupancy was significantly higher for clozapine (0.88) relative to olanzapine (0.54), quetiapine (0.41), or risperidone (0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Among the atypical antipsychotics, clozapine appears to have a simultaneous and equivalent occupancy of dopamine D(1) and D(2) receptors. Whether its effect on D(1) receptors represents agonism or antagonism is not yet clear, as this issue is still unresolved in the preclinical arena. This distinctive effect on D(1)/D(2) receptors may be responsible for clozapine's unique effectiveness in patients with schizophrenia refractory to other typical and atypical antipsychotics.
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) | 0.001 | 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".