MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

M5 Muscarinic Receptors Are Required for Prolonged Accumbal Dopamine Release after Electrical Stimulation of the Pons in Mice

2002· article· en· W2147183145 on OpenAlexaff
Gina L. Forster, John S. Yeomans, Junichi Takeuchi, Charles D. Blaha

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAustralian Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilMacquarie University
KeywordsDopamineNucleus accumbensMuscarinic acetylcholine receptorStimulationMidbrainChemistryDopamine receptorNeuroscienceCholinergic neuronVentral tegmental areaCholinergicEndocrinologyInternal medicineReceptorDopaminergicBiologyMedicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Midbrain dopamine neurons are activated directly by cholinergic agonists or by stimulation of the cholinergic neurons in the laterodorsal tegmental nucleus (LDT) of the pons in rats. In urethane-anesthetized mice, electrical stimulation of the LDT resulted in a rapid, stimulus-time-locked increase in dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens (NAc), followed several minutes later by a prolonged increase in dopamine release. In mutant mice with truncated M5 receptors, the prolonged phase of dopamine release was absent, but the initial, rapid phase of dopamine release was fully observed. We conclude that M5 muscarinic receptors on midbrain dopamine neurons mediate a prolonged facilitation of dopamine release in the NAc. These results imply that M5 muscarinic receptors play an important role in motivational behaviors driven by dopamine activity in the accumbens.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations155
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207