A dynamic role for dopamine receptors in the control of mammalian spinal networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dopamine is well known to regulate movement through the differential control of direct and indirect pathways in the striatum that express D 1 and D 2 receptors respectively. The spinal cord also expresses all dopamine receptors; however, how the specific receptors regulate spinal network output in mammals is poorly understood. We explore the receptor-specific mechanisms that underlie dopaminergic control of spinal network output of neonatal mice during changes in spinal network excitability. During spontaneous activity, which is a characteristic of developing spinal networks operating in a low excitability state, we found that dopamine is primarily inhibitory. We uncover an excitatory D 1 -mediated effect of dopamine on motoneurons and network output that also involves co-activation with D 2 receptors. Critically, these excitatory actions require higher concentrations of dopamine; however, analysis of dopamine concentrations of neonates indicates that endogenous levels of spinal dopamine are low. Because endogenous levels of spinal dopamine are low, this excitatory dopaminergic pathway is likely physiologically-silent at this stage in development. In contrast, the inhibitory effect of dopamine, at low physiological concentrations is mediated by parallel activation of D 2 , D 3 , D 4 and α 2 receptors which is reproduced when endogenous dopamine levels are increased by blocking dopamine reuptake and metabolism. We provide evidence in support of dedicated spinal network components that are controlled by excitatory D 1 and inhibitory D 2 receptors that is reminiscent of the classic dopaminergic indirect and direct pathway within the striatum. These results indicate that network state is an important factor that dictates receptor-specific and therefore dose-dependent control of neuromodulators on spinal network output and advances our understanding of how neuromodulators regulate neural networks under dynamically changing excitability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".