Quinpirole and 8-OH-DPAT induce compulsive checking behavior in male rats by acting on different functional parts of an OCD neurocircuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated whether the serotonin 5-HT1A receptor agonist 8-hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino) tetralin (8-OH-DPAT) can induce compulsive checking in a large open field, as does the dopamine D2/D3 receptor agonist quinpirole. To induce compulsive checking, male rats were exposed to eight injections of either 8-OH-DPAT (1 mg/kg), quinpirole (0.2 mg/kg), or saline. Subsequently, to assess cross-sensitization, rats received an acute challenge of 8-OH-DPAT or quinpirole. The results showed that treatment with 8-OH-DPAT induces compulsive checking and may have a stronger effect on this behavior compared with quinpirole. However, there was no cross-sensitization between 8-OH-DPAT and quinpirole on measures of compulsive checking and locomotion. Moreover, the spatial distribution of locomotor paths in 8-OH-DPAT animals was more confined and invariant than in quinpirole rats; their rate of locomotor sensitization was also faster than that in quinpirole animals. Thus, although 8-OH-DPAT and quinpirole can induce compulsive checking in a large open field, the results suggest that they do so differently. It is suggested that 8-OH-DPAT and quinpirole probably produce compulsive behavior by acting on different parts of a security motivation circuit underlying obsessive-compulsive disorder. Quinpirole may induce compulsive checking behavior by directly driving dopaminergic activity mediating the motivational drive to check. Conversely, 8-OH-DPAT may perpetuate the activated motivational state by inhibiting the serotonergic-negative feedback signals that normally deactivate the obsessive-compulsive disorder circuit.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".