MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089787689 · doi:10.1002/syn.20435

Differential modulation of a 40 kDa catecholamine regulated protein in the core and shell subcompartments of the nucleus accumbens following chronic quinpirole and haloperidol administration in the rat

2007· article· en· W2089787689 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Gabriele, Nancy Thomas, Sevil N‐Marandi, Ram K. Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueSynapse · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiochemical effects in animals
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth Canada
KeywordsNucleus accumbensQuinpiroleHaloperidolChemistryInternal medicineEndocrinologyDopamineAgonistHsp70StriatumCatecholamineReceptorPharmacologyDopamine receptor D2BiologyHeat shock proteinMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Past reports have shown dopamine (DA) D2/D3 receptor agonist quinpirole (QNP) and the DA D2 receptor antagonist, haloperidol (HAL) display a significant increase in expression of catecholamine regulated protein (CRP40) in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) and the striatum, respectively. The present study investigated the in vivo effects of QNP and HAL on CRP40 protein levels within the core and shell subcompartments of the NAcc. As significant homology exists between CRP40 and Hsp70/Hsc70, parallel studies with inducible Hsp70 and constitutive Hsc70 were conducted to establish the specificity with respect to QNP on Hsp70 and CRP40. Results demonstrated that CRP40 protein was significantly expressed in the shell relative to the core region of NAcc following chronic QNP (+16.28%+/-0.42%, P<0.05) and CRP40 protein was significantly expressed in the core vs. the shell following chronic HAL (+36.02%+/-0.75%, P<0.05). There was no significant change in Hsp70 protein levels following chronic QNP or HAL administration. The results demonstrated selective modulation of CRP40 within NAcc by QNP and HAL treatment, without affecting Hsp70.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynapseSame topicBiochemical effects in animalsFrench-language works237,207