MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peptidergic Activation of Locomotor Pattern Generators in the Neonatal Spinal Cord

2003· article· en· W2122615913 on OpenAlexafffund
Selina Pearson, Abdeslam Mouihate, Quentin J. Pittman, Patrick J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicNeuroendocrine regulation and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleSanofi
KeywordsOxytocinSpinal cordVasopressinNeuroscienceLumbar Spinal CordHindlimbAgonistNeuropeptideReceptorStimulationBurstingInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of motor networks in the spinal cord is partly activity-dependent. We have observed receptor-mediated excitatory effects of two peptides, arginine vasopressin (AVP) and oxytocin (OXT), on motor network activity in the neonate. With the use of an en bloc in vitro preparation of mouse spinal cord (2-3 d old), which either was isolated completely or had muscles of the hindlimb left intact, we show that the bath application of AVP or OXT can evoke an increase in population bursting of motoneurons recorded from the lumbar ventral roots. By using antagonists for AVP and OXT, we found that these peptides were binding primarily to V1a and OXT receptors, respectively. Western blot analysis revealed a 48 kDa V1a and a 55 kDa OXT receptor immunoreactive band that was expressed in tissue obtained from L1-L6 sections of spinal cord. AVP, but not OXT, could, on occasion, evoke sustained periods of locomotor-like activity. In addition, when we applied AVP or OXT in combination with a 5-HT2 agonist, bouts of locomotor-like activity could be observed in a majority of preparations. Collectively, these data point to a novel role for AVP and OXT in the activation of spinal motor networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorFrench-language works237,207