Haloperidol conditioned catalepsy in rats: a possible role for D1-like receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreases in brain dopamine (DA) lead to catalepsy, quantified by the time a rat remains with its forepaws resting on a suspended horizontal bar. Low doses of the DA D2 receptor-preferring antagonist haloperidol repeatedly injected in a particular environment lead to gradual day-to-day increases in catalepsy (catalepsy sensitization) and subsequent testing following an injection of saline reveal conditioned catalepsy. We tested the hypothesis that D1-like and D2 receptors play different roles in catalepsy sensitization and in acquisition and expression of conditioned catalepsy. Rats were repeatedly treated with the DA D1-like receptor antagonist SCH 23990 (0.05, 0.1 and 0.25 mg/kg i.p.), the D2 receptor-preferring antagonist haloperidol (0.1, 0.25 and 0.5 mg/kg i.p.) or a combination of the two drugs and tested for catalepsy each day in the same environment. Following 10 drug treatment days, rats were injected with saline and tested for conditioned catalepsy in the previously drug-paired environment. Haloperidol did not elicit cataleptic responses in the initial session; however, rats developed sensitization with repeated testing. Significant catalepsy sensitization was not observed in rats repeatedly tested with SCH 23390. When rats were injected and tested with saline following haloperidol sensitization they exhibited conditioned catalepsy in the test environment; conditioned catalepsy was not seen following SCH 23390. Rats treated with 0.05 mg/kg SCH 23390+0.25 mg/kg haloperidol showed catalepsy sensitization but failed to show conditioned catalepsy. Conversely, SCH 23390 (0.05 mg/kg) given on the test day after sensitization to haloperidol (0.25 mg/kg) failed to block conditioned catalepsy. Repeated antagonism of D2 receptors leads to catalepsy sensitization with repeated testing in a specific environment. Conditioned catalepsy requires intact D1-like receptor function during sensitization sessions but not during test sessions. In conclusion, repeated antagonism of D2, but not D1-like receptors leads to catalepsy sensitization with repeated testing in a specific environment. Conditioned catalepsy requires functional D1-like receptors during sensitization sessions but not during test sessions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".