Dopamine D<sub>1</sub>Receptor Blockage Potentiates AMPA-Stimulated Luteinising Hormone Release in the Goldfish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous microarray analyses of the goldfish hypothalamus led us to hypothesise that dopamine could potentially inhibit the excitatory effects of glutamate on luteinising hormone (LH). Post-spawning female goldfish were pre-treated (-4.5 h) with either saline (C; control), SCH 23390 (S; D(1) -receptor antagonist) or sulpiride (L; D(2) -receptor antagonist), followed by an i.p. injection, at -0.5 h, of saline or the glutamate agonist AMPA (A, SA or LA). Blood, hypothalamus and telencephalon tissues were collected. Serum LH was not affected in the S, L, A, or LA groups relative to control as determined by radioimmunoassay. The SA group, however, showed a 289% (P<0.0005) increase in serum LH compared to either treatment alone or control. Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction identified the mRNAs for ionotropic (Gria2a, Gria4) glutamate receptor subunits, activin βa, isotocin, and cGnRH-II as being significantly affected by some of the treatments. The same experiment conducted with sexually-regressed female fish showed a very different LH profile, indicating that this mechanism is seasonally-dependent. We also show that i.p. injection of 1 μg/g isotocin was able to increase LH levels by 167% in sexually regressed female fish relative to controls. Taken together, these results demonstrate that blockage of the D(1) receptor primes post-spawning goldfish for AMPA-stimulated LH release, and provides further insights into the central regulation of reproduction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".