MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3104636573 · doi:10.1101/715326

A dynamic role for dopamine receptors in the control of mammalian spinal networks

2019· preprint· en· W3104636573 on OpenAlexaff
Simon A. Sharples, Nicole E. Burma, Joanna Borowska-Fielding, Charlie H.T. Kwok, Shane E. A. Eaton, Glen B. Baker, Céline Jean-Xavier, Ying Zhang, Tuan Trang, Patrick J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDopaminergicDopamineDopamine receptorNeuroscienceExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInhibitory postsynaptic potentialD1-like receptorDopaminergic pathwaysStriatumD2-like receptorReceptorDopamine receptor D3BiologyChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. Significance statement Monoaminergic neuromodulation of neural networks is dependent not only on target receptors but also on network state. We studied the concentration-dependent control of spinal networks of the neonatal mouse, in vitro, during a low excitability state characterized by spontaneous network activity. Spontaneous activity is an essential element for the development of networks. Under these conditions, we defined converging receptor and cellular mechanisms that contribute to the diverse, concentration-dependent control of spinal motor networks by dopamine, in vitro. These experiments advance understanding of how monoamines modulate neuronal networks under dynamically changing excitability conditions and provide evidence of dedicated D 1 and D 2 regulated network components in the spinal cord that are consistent with those reported in the striatum.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→