The active fragments of ghrelin cross the blood–brain barrier and enter the brain to produce antinociceptive effects after systemic administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
G (1-5)-NH2, G (1-7)-NH2, and G (1-9) are the active fragments of ghrelin. The aim of this study was to investigate the antinociceptive effects, their ability to cross the blood–brain barrier, and the receptor mechanism(s) of these fragments using the tail withdrawal test in male Kunming mice. The antinociceptive effects of these fragments (2, 6, 20, and 60 nmol/mouse) were tested at 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after intravenous (i.v.) injection. These fragments induced dose- and time-related antinociceptive effects relative to saline. Using the near infrared fluorescence imaging experiments, our results showed that these fragments could cross the brain–blood barrier and enter the brain. The antinociceptive effects of these fragments were completely antagonized by naloxone (intracerebroventricular, i.c.v.); however, naloxone methiodide (intraperitoneal, i.p.), which is the peripheral restricted opioid receptor antagonist, did not antagonize these antinociceptive effects. Furthermore, the GHS-R1α antagonist [D-Lys3]-GHRP-6 (i.c.v.) completely antagonized these antinociceptive effects, too. These results suggested that these fragments induced antinociceptive effects through central opioid receptors and GHS-R1α. In conclusion, our studies indicated that these active fragments of ghrelin could cross the brain–blood barrier and enter the brain and induce antinociceptive effects through central opioid receptors and GHS-R1α after intravenous injection.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".