MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082493289 · doi:10.1186/s13041-020-00663-9

Cav3.2 T-type calcium channels control acute itch in mice

2020· article· en· W3082493289 on OpenAlexafffund
Vinícius M. Gadotti, Joanna Kreitinger, Nicholas B. Wageling, Dylan Budke, Philippe Diaz, Gerald W. Zamponi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Brain · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsScratchingHistamineVoltage-dependent calcium channelPharmacologyNociceptionMedicineChloroquineCalcium channelCalciumInternal medicineImmunologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cav3.2 T-type calcium channels are important mediators of nociceptive signaling, but their roles in the transmission of itch remains poorly understood. Here we report a key involvement of these channels as key modulators of itch/pruritus-related behavior. We compared scratching behavior responses between wild type and Cav3.2 null mice in models of histamine- or chloroquine-induced itch. We also evaluated the effect of the T-type calcium channel blocker DX332 in male and female wild-type mice injected with either histamine or chloroquine. Cav3.2 null mice exhibited decreased scratching responses during both histamine- and chloroquine-induced acute itch. DX332 co-injected with the pruritogens inhibited scratching responses of male and female mice treated with either histamine or chloroquine. Altogether, our data provide strong evidence that Cav3.2 T-type channels exert an important role in modulating histamine-dependent and -independent itch transmission in the primary sensory afferent pathway, and highlight these channels as potential pharmacological targets to treat pruritus.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular BrainSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207