Disturbed inspiratory rhythm in rat brainstem slices by seizure‐like bursting due to theophylline‐evoked GABA <sub>A</sub> receptor block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methylxantines theophylline and caffeine can evoke seizures at clinical doses. Here we studied if this can disturb inspiratory activity and whether blockade of γ‐aminobutyric acid‐A (GABA A ) receptors is involved. In newborn rat brainstem‐spinal cords, inspiratory‐related cervical nerve bursting driven by the pre‐Bötzinger Complex (preBötC) was perturbed by >0.1mM caffeine or theophylline. At millimolar levels, seizure‐like discharges occurred that resembled non‐respiratory activity due to bicuculline. In brainstem slices, seizure‐like bursting in inspiratory active hypoglossal nucleus or preBötC area was less pronounced than in the en bloc model for the same concentration. GABA A receptor activation with muscimol hyperpolarized preBötC neurons with a decrease of input resistance and blocked inspiratory rhythm. Rhythm restoration by 5–10mM theophylline in muscimol was accompanied by recovery of membrane potential and resistance. Findings suggest that methylxanthines at millimolar doses perturb preBötC bursting in the slice model via blockade of GABA A receptors, whereas disturbance of rhythm at submillimolar levels in the en bloc model may be due to another mechanism. Supported by AHFMR, CIHR, MFN‐Health
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".