MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210922077 · doi:10.3390/brainsci11111398

Sex Differences in Dopamine Receptor Signaling in Fmr1 Knockout Mice: A Pilot Study

2021· article· en· W3210922077 on OpenAlexaff
Anlong Jiang, Le Wang, Justin Lu, A.H. Freeman, Charlie Campbell, Ping Su, Albert H.C. Wong, Fang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFMR1EndocrinologyInternal medicineDopamineKnockout mouseAgonistGSK-3Fragile X syndromeProtein kinase ADopamine receptor D1Dopamine receptor D2BiologyReceptorChemistryKinaseMedicineGeneticsAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is an X-chromosome-linked dominant genetic disorder that causes a variable degree of cognitive dysfunction and developmental disability. Current treatment is symptomatic and no existing medications target the specific cause of FXS. As with other X-linked disorders, FXS manifests differently in males and females, including abnormalities in the dopamine system that are also seen in Fmr1-knockout (KO) mice. We investigated sex differences in dopamine signaling in Fmr1-KO mice in response to L-stepholidine, a dopamine D1 receptor agonist and D2 receptor antagonist. We found significant sex differences in basal levels of phosphorylated protein kinase A (p-PKA) and glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3β in wild type mice that were absent in Fmr1-KO mice. In wild-type mice, L-stepholidine increased p-PKA in males but not female mice, decreased p-GSK-3 in female mice and increased p-GSK-3 in male mice. Conversely, in Fmr1-KO mice, L-stepholidine increased p-PKA and p-GSK-3β in females, and decreased p-PKA and p-GSK-3β in males.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain SciencesSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207