Pharmacological effects of cannabinoids on learning and memory in <i>Lymnaea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Cannabinoids are hypothesized to play an important role in modulating learning and memory formation. Here, we identified mRNAs expressed in Lymnaea stagnalis central nervous system that encode two G-protein-coupled receptors (Lymnaea CBr-like 1 and 2) that structurally resemble mammalian cannabinoid receptors (CBrs). We found that injection of a mammalian CBr agonist WIN 55,212-2 (WIN 55) into the snail before operant conditioning obstructed learning and memory formation. This effect of WIN 55 injection persisted for at least 4 days following its injection. A similar obstruction of learning and memory occurred when a severe traumatic stimulus was delivered to L. stagnalis. In contrast, injection of a mammalian CBr antagonist AM 251 enhanced long-term memory formation in snails and reduced the duration of the effects of the severe traumatic stressor on learning and memory. Neither WIN 55 nor AM 251 altered normal homeostatic aerial respiratory behaviour elicited in hypoxic conditions. Our results suggest that putative cannabinoid receptors mediate stressful stimuli that alter learning and memory formation in Lymnaea. This is also the first demonstration that putative CBrs are present in Lymnaea and play a key role in learning and memory formation.
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".