GABAergic mechanisms underlying episodic breathing in rat brainstem‐spinal cord preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using neonatal rat brainstem‐spinal cord preparations, we examined respiratory activity to characterize the production of episodic breathing patterns with the pons intact and the pons removed; and in the presence of GABA receptor agonists and antagonists. Neonatal rats (P0‐P4) were anesthetized and brainstem spinal cords removed. Respiratory‐like activity from C1 and C4 ventral roots were recorded (21–23C) and raw recordings were integrated and analyzed for respiratory burst duration, peak height, peak area, frequency and breathing pattern (episodic vs. continuous) before and after GABA receptor activation or blockade. Episodic patterns were expressed in a high percentage of young preparations at room temperature. With the pons intact, the GABAA antagonist, bicuculline, increased burst frequency and burst duration. The increase in duration appeared to be due to the combination of two or three distinct bursts with no expiratory pauses, suggesting the appearance of episodic pattern formation. With the pons removed, bicuculline increased burst frequency but had no effect on duration. GABA A receptor agonists (muscimol and chlorpromazine) decreased frequency and turned episodic patterns to continuous patterns. Phaclofen, a GABA B receptor antagonist, had no effect on respiratory pattern or frequency. These results show that GABA A but not GABA B receptors play a role in episodic respiratory pattern generation and that pontine mechanisms are involved in this pathway.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".