GPR52 agonists attenuate ropinirole-induced preference for uncertain outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
receptor agonists are less likely to trigger dyskinesias than L-dopa while still offering relief from the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, these drugs can cause serious impulse control problems and gambling disorders. Adjunctive therapies capable of blocking these side effects without impacting the antiparkinsonian effect would be clinically useful. G-protein-coupled receptor 52 (GPR52) is an orphan Gs-protein-coupled receptor that is coexpressed with striatal D₂ receptors. Activating GPR52 attenuates behaviors associated with increased striatal dopamine release without altering basal function. Iatrogenic gambling disorder may be mediated, at least partly, by striatal dopamine signaling. We therefore investigated whether 2 potent small-molecule GPR52 agonists (BD442618, BD502657) could block the increase in preference for uncertain outcomes caused by acute d-amphetamine and chronic ropinirole, without altering baseline choice patterns. In the rat betting task (rBT), subjects choose between a guaranteed reward (the "wager") versus the 50:50 chance of double the wager or nothing. Although wager size varies across trial blocks, both options are constantly matched for expected value. The effects of BD442618 on the rBT were acutely assessed alone or in combination with d-amphetamine and subsequently in combination with chronic ropinirole. The latter experiment was then repeated with BD502657. BD442618 did not alter baseline decision making but attenuated the increase in preference for uncertainty caused by both acute amphetamine and chronic ropinirole administration. Similarly, BD502657 abrogated chronic ropinirole's effects. These data provide the first evidence that GPR52 agonists may be useful in treating iatrogenic gambling disorder or other conditions hallmarked by hyperdopaminergic states. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".