The subfornical organ: A novel site for prolactin action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolactin (PRL) is a peptide hormone that performs over 300 biological functions, including those that require binding to prolactin receptor (PRL‐R) in neurones within the central nervous system (CNS). To enter theCNS, circulatingPRLmust overcome the blood‐brain barrier. Accordingly, areas of the brain that do not possess a blood‐brain barrier, such as the subfornical organ (SFO), are optimally positioned to interact with systemicPRL. TheSFOhas been classically implicated in energy and fluid homeostasis but has the potential to influence oestrous cyclicity and gonadotrophin release, which are also functions ofPRL. We aimed to confirm and characterise the expression ofPRL‐R in theSFO, as well as identify the effects ofPRLapplication on membrane excitability of dissociatedSFOneurones. Using a quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction, we found thatPRL‐RmRNAin theSFOof male and female Sprague Dawley rats did not significantly differ between juvenile and sexually mature rats (P = .34), male and female rats (P = .97) or across the oestrous cycle (P = .54). Patch‐clamp recordings were obtained in juvenile male rats to further investigate the actions ofPRLat theSFO. DissociatedSFOneurones perfused with 1 μmol L‐1PRLresulted in 2 responsive subpopulations of neurones; 40% depolarised (n = 15/43, 11.3 ± 1.7mV) and 14% hyperpolarised (n = 6/43, −6.7 ± 1.4mV) toPRLapplication. Within the range of 10 pmol L‐1to 1 μmol L‐1, the concentrations ofPRLwere not significantly different in either the magnitude (P = .53) or proportion (P = .19) of response. Furthermore,PRLapplication significantly reduced the transient K+current in 67% ofSFOneurones in voltage‐clamp configuration (n = 6/9,P = .02). The stability in response toPRLand expression ofPRL‐R in theSFOsuggests thatPRLfunction is conserved across physiological states and circulatingPRLconcentrations, prompting further investigations aiming to clarify the nature ofPRLfunction in the SFO.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".