MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dopamine Specifically Inhibits Forebrain Neural Stem Cell Proliferation, Suggesting a Novel Effect of Antipsychotic Drugs

2005· article· en· W2073566389 on OpenAlexafffund
Tod E. Kippin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersStem Cell Network
KeywordsHaloperidolNeurogenesisNeural stem cellDopamineForebrainNeuroscienceDopamine receptorProgenitor cellAntipsychoticReceptorBiologyStem cellPharmacologyPsychologyCell biologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Central nervous systemPsychiatryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurogenesis has been implicated in antidepressant drug action and animal models of depression, suggesting that proliferating cells play a role in psychiatric disorders. Similar studies using antipsychotic drugs have yielded conflicting results, perhaps because of the lack of focus on specific cell types. We examine the effect of haloperidol on neural stem cells (NSCs), the ultimate precursors for adult cell genesis. We show that haloperidol increases NSC numbers, resulting in more progenitors and more new neurons and glia in the adult rat brain. The increase in NSCs by haloperidol is dependent on central dopamine D2 receptors, and these receptors are expressed by NSCs. D2 receptor stimulation in vitro inhibits NSC proliferation, which is reversed by haloperidol. Thus, haloperidol increases adult mammalian brain proliferation by antagonizing dopamine at D2 receptors on NSCs. These findings demonstrate a direct link between neural activity and NSC proliferation and implicate cell genesis in antipsychotic drug effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations215
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanismsFrench-language works237,207