MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156308703 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0414

Antidepressant-like activity of S 20098 (agomelatine) in the forced swimming test in rodents: involvement of melatonin and serotonin receptors

2004· article· en· W2156308703 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgomelatineImipramineFluoxetineMelatoninSerotoninBehavioural despair testAnimal modelReuptake inhibitorMedicinePharmacologyGynecologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineAntidepressantReceptorHippocampusPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study agomelatine (S 20098), a potent agonist at melatonin receptors and antagonist at serotonin-2C (5-HT(2C)) receptors, in an animal model of depression, namely, the rodent forced swimming test (FST). METHODS: The effects of acute and repeated administration of S 20098 were compared with those of melatonin (4, 8, 16, 32, 64 mg/kg intraperitoneally [IP] for mice), imipramine (64 mg/kg orally for rats, 8 mg/kg IP for mice) and fluoxetine (16 mg/kg IP for mice). The influence of the pretreatments with 5-HT(1A) or 5-HT(1B) receptor agonists (8-OH-DPAT, anpirtoline) and 5-HT(1A/1B), 5-HT(2A/2C) or 5-HT(3) antagonists (pindolol, ritanserin, ondansetron) on the effects of S 20098 or melatonin were compared with imipramine and fluoxetine in mice. RESULTS: Acute or repeated (13 days) administration of S 20098 or imipramine in rats significantly decreased the duration of immobility during the FST at all doses. A dose-dependent effect was observed after the repeated treatment with S 20098. When given for 10 days to mice in the evening, S 20098 was active on the FST at doses of 4, 16 and 32 mg/kg, whereas the acute administration of S 20098 (in the morning and evening) was without any significant effect. Acute or repeated administration of S 20098 did not modify the locomotor activity of mice. The combination of S 20098 with the above-mentioned pretreatments enhanced the effects of S 20098, given alone, on the duration of immobility. By comparison, acute melatonin was inactive in the FST and only pretreatment with 8-OH-DPAT or pindolol revealed an anti-immobility effect. A pretreatment with 8-OH-DPAT also induced anti-immobility effects with imipramine, but not fluoxetine, whereas pindolol exerted additive effects with fluoxetine but not imipramine. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the antidepressant-like activity of repeated administration of S 20098 in the FST. Moreover, the combination of 5-HT agonists and antagonists leads to more powerful effects with S 20098 than with melatonin, thereby emphasizing the contribution of 5-HT receptors to the antidepressant activity of S 20098. Compared with imipramine and fluoxetine, the 5-HT receptor subtypes that may be involved in the antidepressant-like activity of S 20098 are not similar. Indeed, when considering the binding properties of S 20098, the 5-HT(2C) receptor subtype appears to be the most attractive candidate. It is concluded that the antidepressant-like activity of S 20098 in this model most probably involves a combination of both its melatonin agonist and 5-HT(2C )receptor antagonist properties.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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