Recent Developments in the Regulation of Monoamine Oxidase Form and Function: Is the Current Model Restricting Our Understanding of the Breadth of Contribution of Monoamine Oxidase to Brain [dys]Function?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, much of the focus on monoamine oxidases and their substrates has been in the area of depression and the monoamine neurotransmitters serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine), noradrenaline, and to a lesser extent, dopamine. With both forms of monoamine oxidase (A and B), the production of hydrogen peroxide as a byproduct of the reaction between the monoamine oxidases and their monoamine substrates has also implicated monoamine oxidase-sensitive events in intrinsic cell death pathways, particularly those centered on oxidative stress and peroxyradical-mediated mechanisms. Consequently, and perhaps not unexpectedly, the inhibition of monoamine oxidase has been considered as adjunctive therapy in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, both of which involve a significant oxidative stress component. Yet the literature also provides ambiguities; indeed, not all of the functions of monoamine oxidases are dependent on catalytic activity nor can they all be ascribed to expression levels of the monoamine oxidase protein per se. Recent reports strongly suggest that the functions of monoamine oxidases also rely on posttranslational modifications, epigenetic influences, interactions with other proteins, the cell phenotype and its localization to specific subcellular compartments. These recent developments certainly complicate the issue, yet they need to be duly considered when implicating monoamine oxidases and their inhibitors in both in vitro and in vivo pathological contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it