MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797464049 · doi:10.7717/peerj.4593

Evolution of dopamine receptors: phylogenetic evidence suggests a later origin of the DRD <sub>2l</sub> and DRD <sub>4rs</sub> dopamine receptor gene lineages

2018· article· en· W2797464049 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan C. Opazo, Kattina Zavala, Soledad Miranda‐Rottmann, Roberto Araya

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDopamine receptorBiologyDopaminePhylogenetic treeMonophylyDopaminergicReceptorSister groupCladeGeneticsNeuroscienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopamine receptors are integral membrane proteins whose endogenous ligand is dopamine. They play a fundamental role in the central nervous system and dysfunction of dopaminergic neurotransmission is responsible for the generation of a variety of neuropsychiatric disorders. From an evolutionary standpoint, phylogenetic relationships among the DRD 1 class of dopamine receptors are still a matter of debate as in the literature different tree topologies have been proposed. In contrast, phylogenetic relationships among the DRD 2 group of receptors are well understood. Understanding the time of origin of the different dopamine receptors is also an issue that needs further study, especially for the genes that have restricted phyletic distributions (e.g., DRD 2l and DRD 4rs ). Thus, the goal of this study was to investigate the evolution of dopamine receptors, with emphasis on shedding light on the phylogenetic relationships among the D 1 class of dopamine receptors and the time of origin of the DRD 2l and DRD 4rs gene lineages. Our results recovered the monophyly of the two groups of dopamine receptors. Within the DRD 1 group the monophyly of each paralog was recovered with strong support, and phylogenetic relationships among them were well resolved. Within the DRD 1 class of dopamine receptors we recovered the sister group relationship between the DRD 1C and DRD 1E , and this clade was recovered sister to a cyclostome sequence. The DRD 1 clade was recovered sister to the aforementioned clade, and the group containing DRD 5 receptors was sister to all other DRD 1 paralogs. In agreement with the literature, among the DRD 2 class of receptors, DRD 2 was recovered sister to DRD 3 , whereas DRD 4 was sister to the DRD 2 /DRD 3 clade. According to our phylogenetic tree, the DRD 2l and DRD 4rs gene lineages would have originated in the ancestor of gnathostomes between 615 and 473 mya. Conservation of sequences required for dopaminergic neurotransmission and small changes in regulatory regions suggest a functional refinement of the dopaminergic pathways along evolution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingFrench-language works237,207