Striatal Neurons Expressing D1 and D2 Receptors are Morphologically Distinct and Differently Affected by Dopamine Denervation in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The loss of nigrostriatal dopamine neurons in Parkinson’s disease induces a reduction in the number of dendritic spines on medium spiny neurons (MSNs) of the striatum expressing D 1 or D 2 dopamine receptor. Consequences on MSNs expressing both receptors (D 1 /D 2 MSNs) are currently unknown. We looked for changes induced by dopamine denervation in the density, regional distribution and morphological features of D 1 /D 2 MSNs, by comparing 6-OHDA-lesioned double BAC transgenic mice ( Drd1a -tdTomato/ Drd2 -EGFP) to sham-lesioned animals. D 1 /D 2 MSNs are uniformly distributed throughout the dorsal striatum (1.9% of MSNs). In contrast, they are heterogeneously distributed and more numerous in the ventral striatum (14.6% in the shell and 7.3% in the core). Compared to D 1 and D 2 MSNs, D 1 /D 2 MSNs are endowed with a smaller cell body and a less profusely arborized dendritic tree with less dendritic spines. The dendritic spine density of D 1 /D 2 MSNs, but also of D 1 and D 2 MSNs, is significantly reduced in 6-OHDA-lesioned mice. In contrast to D 1 and D 2 MSNs, the extent of dendritic arborization of D 1 /D 2 MSNs appears unaltered in 6-OHDA-lesioned mice. Our data indicate that D 1 /D 2 MSNs in the mouse striatum form a distinct neuronal population that is affected differently by dopamine deafferentation that characterizes Parkinson’s disease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".