MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991614103 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1908724116

β2* nAChRs on VTA dopamine and GABA neurons separately mediate nicotine aversion and reward

2019· article· en· W2991614103 on OpenAlexafffund
Taryn E. Grieder, Morgane Besson, Geith Maal‐Bared, Stéphanie Pons, Uwe Maskos, Derek van der Kooy

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVentral tegmental areaDopamineNicotineNicotinic agonistNeuroscienceDopaminergicConditioned place preferenceNeurotransmitterAversive StimulusPharmacologyPsychologyMedicineReceptorInternal medicineCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Nicotine addiction that results from long-term smoking is a worldwide health epidemic. Here we show that nicotinic receptors containing specific subunits, located in the brain reward system, mediate the experience of both the acute rewarding and aversive effects of nicotine, depending on which neurons they are located. These results provide contradictory evidence to the popularly held belief that the brain dopaminergic system exclusively mediates the rewarding effects of abused drugs, instead providing evidence that the aversive motivational effects of nicotine are signaled through this system as well. Our results lead to a better understanding of the neurobiological substrates of nicotine reward and aversion and thus may lead to new possible targets for pharmacotherapeutic treatments of tobacco addiction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations36
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyFrench-language works237,207