The metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 role on motor behavior involves specific neural substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5) is involved in various brain functions, including memory, cognition and motor behavior. Regarding locomotor activity, we and others have demonstrated that pharmacological antagonism of mGluR5 promotes hyperkinesia in mice. Moreover, increased locomotor activity can also be observed in mice following the genetic deletion of mGluR5. However, it is still unclear which specific brain substrates contribute to mGluR5-mediated regulation of motor function. RESULTS: Thus, to better understand the role of mGluR5 in motor control and to determine which neural substrates are involved in this regulation we performed stereotactic microinfusions of the mGluR5 antagonist, MPEP, into specific brain regions and submitted mice to the open field and rotarod apparatus. Our findings indicate that mGluR5 blockage elicits distinct outcomes in terms of locomotor activity and motor coordination depending on the brain region injected with mGluR5 antagonist. MPEP injection into either the dorsal striatum or dorsal hippocampus resulted in increased locomotor activity, whereas MPEP injection into either the ventral striatum or motor cortex resulted in hypokinesia. Moreover, MPEP injected into the olfactory bulb increased the distance mice traveled in the center of the open field arena. With respect to motor coordination on the rotarod, injection of MPEP into the motor cortex and olfactory bulb elicited decreased latency to fall. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our data suggest that not only primarily motor neural substrates, but also limbic and sensory structures are involved in mGluR5-mediated motor behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".