Control of Rest:Activity by a Dopaminergic Ultradian Oscillator and the Circadian Clock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is long-standing evidence for rhythms in locomotor activity, as well as various other aspects of physiology, with periods substantially shorter than 24 h in organisms ranging from fruit flies to humans. These ultradian oscillations, whose periods frequently fall between 2 and 6 h, are normally well integrated with circadian rhythms; however, they often lack the period stability and expression robustness of the latter. An adaptive advantage of ultradian rhythms has been clearly demonstrated for the common vole, suggesting that they may have evolved to confer social synchrony. The cellular substrate and mechanism of ultradian rhythm generation have remained elusive so far, however recent findings-the subject of this review-now indicate that ultradian locomotor rhythms rely on an oscillator based on dopamine, dubbed the dopaminergic ultradian oscillator (DUO). These findings also reveal that the DUO period can be lengthened from <4 to >48 h by methamphetamine treatment, suggesting that the previously described methamphetamine-sensitive (circadian) oscillator represents a long-period manifestation of the DUO.
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 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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".