Blockade of prelimbic glutamate receptor reduces the reinforcing effect of morphine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prelimbic cortex (PrL) as a part of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) plays a crucial role in drug addiction. Previous studies have shown that glutamatergic transmission through the NMDA and AMPA receptors plays an important role in morphine rewarding properties. In this study, we evaluated the effect of glutamate receptors blockade within the PrL on morphine self-administration. Male Wistar rats were randomly selected and divided into 7 groups. Trained rats were placed in self-administration apparatus, where they pressed an active lever for receiving morphine (5 mg/mL) in test groups and saline in saline group during 11 consecutive days for 2 h per session. The effects of intra-prelimbic AMPA receptor antagonist (CNQX; 0.5 and 2.5 μg/0.5 μL) and the NMDA antagonist (AP5; 0.1 and 1 μg/0.5 μL) on self-administration were tested. Our results demonstrated that intra-prelimbic injection of different doses of CNQX and AP5, and co-administration of these 2 drugs before self-administration significantly decreased active lever pressing compared with morphine group (p < 0.001). Also, the number of self-infusion significantly decreased in test groups compared with morphine group (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that a reduction in PrL glutamatergic output can modulate morphine reinforcement.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".