Modulation of Locomotor Activity by Multiple 5-HT and Dopaminergic Receptor Subtypes in the Neonatal Mouse Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, it has been shown that bath-applied 5-HT can elicit fictive locomotion from perinatal mouse preparations. Since 5-HT acts on multiple receptor subtypes, the focus of this study was to examine which receptor families contribute to the genesis and modulation of locomotor activity. Blockade of 5-HT(2) (ketanserin or N-desmethylclozapine) or 5-HT(7) receptors (SB-269970) could reversibly block or modulate the locomotor-like pattern. A 5-HT(2) agonist (alpha-methyl-5-HT) was shown to be capable of activating the rhythm. Bath application of 5-HT(7) agonists (5-CT) generally led to a tonic increase in neurogram discharge, accompanied by bouts of rhythmic activity. Blockade of dopaminergic receptors (D(1) [R-(+)-SCH-23390 or LE 300]/D(2) [(+/-)-sulpiride or L-741,626] ) could reversibly disrupt the rhythm and most effectively did so when the D(1) and D(2) antagonists were added together. Conversely, 5-HT(2) and D(1)/D(2) agonists can interact to evoke locomotor activity. Overall, our data show that, in the neonatal mouse preparation, 5-HT evoked locomotion is partly dependent on activation of 5-HT(2), 5-HT(7), and dopaminergic receptor subtypes.
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) | 0.001 | 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".