Kappa-opioid receptor stimulation quickens pathogenesis of compulsive checking in the quinpirole sensitization model of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeated injections of the D2/D3 dopamine agonist, quinpirole, induce locomotor sensitization and compulsive checking behavior in rats, a phenomenon that may constitute an animal model of obsessive- compulsive disorder (OCD). Considering that the co-joint treatment with quinpirole and the kappa opioid receptor agonist U69593 potentiates locomotor sensitization to quinpirole, the present study examined whether such co-stimulation of kappa and dopamine receptors also enhances compulsive checking and whether dopamine receptor supersensitivity mediates the augmentation effects. Results showed that co-treatment of quinpirole and U69593 had a robust accelerating effect on the acquisition of sensitized locomotion and compulsive checking but that the effects on the expression of quinpirole sensitization were behavior dependent, with increased magnitude of locomotion but not of compulsive checking. Quinpirole and even U69593, which by itself did not induce sensitization, increased the proportion of dopamine D2 receptors in the high-affinity state (D2(High)) in the nucleus accumbens and striatum, indicating that elevation of D2(High) is not sufficient to account for sensitization or compulsive checking. The animal model findings point to a potential role of kappa opioid systems in hastening the pathogenesis of OCD and to the possibility that distinct brain regions may mediate the development and the expression of compulsive checking.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".