Cannabinoids and Dopamine Receptors' Action on Calcium Current in Rat Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of cannabinoid, glutamate, and dopamine agonists and antagonists on the calcium current rat sympathetic neurons. METHODS: Calcium current was recorded using the whole-cell variant of the patch-clamp technique. After expression in neuronal membranes of the cannabinoid CB1, glutamate mGluR2, or dopamine D1 receptor (by microinjection of the levant receptor's cDNA into the neuron's nucleus) agonists' and antagonists' effects were observed. RESULTS: Applications of agonists of the expressed receptor (0.1-10 microM) decreased the calcium current. The calcium current was increased after application of cannabinoid antagonists (AM251 and AM630); these compounds thus act as inverse agonists in this preparation. Glutamate and dopamine antagonists had no effects on the calcium current by themselves. Combined application of cannabinoids and dopamine, but not glutamate, agonists produced a decrement in the calcium current that was bigger than either of the effects seen when one agonist was applied alone. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cannabinoid with dopamine receptors have an interactive inhibitory effect on the calcium current in this preparation, indicating that within the nervous system, receptor interactions may be important in the regulation of ion-channel functions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".