Differential propensity to ethanol sensitization is not associated with altered binding to D1 receptors or dopamine transporters in mouse brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral sensitization to ethanol's stimulant effect has been proposed as a marker for individual abuse liability. In previous work we have demonstrated that mice showing an increased propensity to EtOH sensitization had higher levels of dopamine (DA) D2 receptor binding in localized brain areas compared to mice showing less sensitization. In the present study we examined whether altered binding to D1 or the DA transporter (DAT) might also be associated with differential propensity to develop EtOH sensitization. Male Swiss mice received 2.4 g/kg EtOH or saline intraperitoneally (i.p.) daily for 21 days, were tested weekly for locomotor activity, and then sacrificed. D1 and DAT binding were assessed by quantitative autoradiography using [(3)H]SCH-23390 and [(3)H]WIN 35,428, respectively. EtOH-treated mice were subdivided into sensitized and non-sensitized subgroups according to their locomotor activity during treatment. Analyses of brain D1 (19 regions) and DAT (12 regions) binding densities revealed no significant differences among EtOH-sensitized, -non-sensitized or saline groups in any of the regions measured (all p values > 0.32 for D1 and > 0.16 for DAT). These results suggest that brain D1 and DAT binding, unlike the recently reported changes in D2 binding, do not differentiate mice that develop behavioral sensitization to ethanol from those that do not.
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 | 0.001 | 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".