MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461893208 · doi:10.1002/cne.24066

Anatomical characterization of the cannabinoid CB<sub>1</sub> receptor in cell‐type–specific mutant mouse rescue models

2016· article· en· W2461893208 on OpenAlexafffund
Ana Gutiérrez‐Rodrίguez, Nagore Puente, Izaskun Elezgarai, Sabine Ruehle, Beat Lutz, Leire Reguero, Inmaculada Gerrikagoitia, Giovanni Marsicano, Pedro Grandes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunityEuropean Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la RechercheInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleFondation de l'Avenir pour la Recherche Médicale Appliquée
KeywordsGlutamatergicGABAergicBiologyNeuroscienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialReceptorHippocampal formationExcitatory postsynaptic potentialAMPA receptorCell biologyGlutamate receptorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Type 1 cannabinoid (CB1) receptors are widely distributed in the brain. Their physiological roles depend on their distribution pattern, which differs remarkably among cell types. Hence, subcellular compartments with little but functionally relevant CB1 receptors can be overlooked, fostering an incomplete mapping. To overcome this, knockin mice with cell‐type–specific rescue of CB1 receptors have emerged as excellent tools for investigating CB1 receptors’ cell‐type–specific localization and sufficient functional role with no bias. However, to know whether these rescue mice maintain endogenous CB1 receptor expression level, detailed anatomical studies are necessary. The subcellular distribution of hippocampal CB1 receptors of rescue mice that express the gene exclusively in dorsal telencephalic glutamatergic neurons (Glu‐CB1‐RS) or GABAergic neurons (GABA‐CB1‐RS) was studied by immunoelectron microscopy. Results were compared with conditional CB1 receptor knockout lines. As expected, CB1 immunoparticles appeared at presynaptic plasmalemma, making asymmetric and symmetric synapses. In the hippocampal CA1 stratum radiatum, the values of the CB1 receptor‐immunopositive excitatory and inhibitory synapses were Glu‐CB1‐RS, 21.89% (glutamatergic terminals); 2.38% (GABAergic terminals); GABA‐CB1‐RS, 1.92% (glutamatergic terminals); 77.92% (GABAergic terminals). The proportion of CB1 receptor‐immunopositive excitatory and inhibitory synapses in the inner one‐third of the dentate molecular layer was Glu‐CB1‐RS, 53.19% (glutamatergic terminals); 2.30% (GABAergic terminals); GABA‐CB1‐RS, 3.19% (glutamatergic terminals); 85.07% (GABAergic terminals). Taken together, Glu‐CB1‐RS and GABA‐CB1‐RS mice show the usual CB1 receptor distribution and expression in hippocampal cell types with specific rescue of the receptor, thus being ideal for in‐depth anatomical and functional investigations of the endocannabinoid system. J. Comp. Neurol. 525:302–318, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207