Dopaminergic modulation of locomotor network activity in the neonatal mouse spinal cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopamine is now well established as a modulator of locomotor rhythms in a variety of developing and adult vertebrates. However, in mice, while all five dopamine receptor subtypes are present in the spinal cord, it is unclear which receptor subtypes modulate the rhythm. Dopamine receptors can be grouped into two families-the D1/5 receptor group and the D2/3/4 group, which have excitatory and inhibitory effects, respectively. Our data suggest that dopamine exerts contrasting dose-dependent modulatory effects via the two receptor families. Our data show that administration of dopamine at concentrations >35 μM slowed and increased the regularity of a locomotor rhythm evoked by bath application of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and N-methyl-d(l)-aspartic acid (NMA). This effect was independent of the baseline frequency of the rhythm that was manipulated by altering the NMA concentration. We next examined the contribution of the D1- and D2-like receptor families on the rhythm. Our data suggest that the D1-like receptor contributes to enhancement of the stability of the rhythm. Overall, the D2-like family had a pronounced slowing effect on the rhythm; however, quinpirole, the D2-like agonist, also enhanced rhythm stability. These data indicate a receptor-dependent delegation of the modulatory effects of dopamine on the spinal locomotor pattern generator.
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".