Beyond the monoaminergic hypothesis: neuroplasticity and epigenetic changes in a transgenic mouse model of depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monoamine hypothesis of depression has dominated our understanding of both the pathophysiology of depression and the action of pharmacological treatments for the last decades, and it has led to the production of several generations of antidepressant agents. However, there are serious limitations to the current monoamine theory, and additional mechanisms, including hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis dysfunctions, as well as neurodegenerative and inflammatory alterations, are potentially associated with the pathogenesis of mood disorders. Moreover, new data have recently indicated that epigenetic mechanisms such as histone modifications and DNA methylation could affect diverse pathways leading to depression-like behaviours in animal models. In a transgenic mouse model of depression, in which a downregulation of glucocorticoid receptors (GR) causes a deficit in the HPA axis feedback control, besides alterations in monoamine neurotransmission and neuroplasticity, we found modifications in the expression of many proteins involved in epigenetic regulation, as well as clock genes, in the hippocampus and the frontal cortex, that might be central in the genesis of depressive-like behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".