Effects of cannabinoid and vanilloid receptor agonists and their interaction on learning and memory in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite previous findings on the effects of cannabinoid and vanilloid systems on learning and memory, the effects of the combined stimulation of these 2 systems on learning and memory have not been studied. Therefore, in this study, we tested the interactive effects of cannabinoid and vanilloid systems on learning and memory in rats by using passive avoidance learning (PAL) tests. Forty male Wistar rats were divided into the following 4 groups: (1) control (DMSO+saline), (2) WIN55,212–2, (3) capsaicin, and (4) WIN55,212–2 + capsaicin. On test day, capsaicin, a vanilloid receptor type 1 (TRPV1) agonist, or WIN55,212–2, a cannabinoid receptor (CB1/CB2) agonist, or both substances were injected intraperitoneally. Compared to the control group, the group treated with capsaicin (TRPV1 agonist) had better scores in the PAL acquisition and retention test, whereas treatment with WIN55,212–2 (CB1/CB2 agonist) decreased the test scores. Capsaicin partly reduced the effects of WIN55,212–2 on PAL and memory. We conclude that the acute administration of a TRPV1 agonist improves the rats’ cognitive performance in PAL tasks and that a vanilloid-related mechanism may underlie the agonistic effect of WIN55,212–2 on learning and memory.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".