Nitrous oxide (N <sub>2</sub> O) increases brain L‐arginine in production of its antinociceptive effect in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C57BL/6 (C57) inbred mice respond to N 2 O with an increase in brain nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activity and a robust antinociceptive effect; DBA/2 (DBA) fail to exhibit these responses (Ishikawa and Quock, Brain Res. 976:262–263, 2003a). This study was conducted to determine whether increasing the availability of nitric oxide (NO) by administration of L‐arginine might increase responsiveness of DBA mice to N 2 O and ascertain the effect of N 2 O on brain levels of L‐arginine. Sensitivity to N 2 O was assessed using the acetic acid‐induced abdominal constriction test. Whole brain levels of L‐arginine were quantified by HPLC. Intracerebroventricular preloading of L‐arginine in subthreshold doses enhanced the N 2 O‐induced antinociceptive effects in both C57 and DBA mice. A 60‐min exposure to 70% N 2 O produced a 12‐fold increase in brain L‐arginine levels of C57 mice, compared to room air exposure. Similar treatment of DBA mice resulted in a 5‐fold increase in brain L‐arginine levels. While the cause of the differential responsiveness of inbred mice to N 2 O remains to be determined, it is apparent that N 2 O increases brain L‐arginine levels to produce its antinociceptive effect. (Supported in part by NIH Grant GM‐77153 and the Allen I. White Distinguished Professorship.)
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".