Faculty Opinions recommendation of Chrna5 genotype determines the long-lasting effects of developmental in vivo nicotine exposure on prefrontal attention circuitry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal smoking during pregnancy repeatedly exposes the developing fetus to nicotine and is linked with attention deficits in offspring. Corticothalamic neurons within layer VI of the medial prefrontal cortex are potential targets in the disruption of attention circuitry by nicotine, a process termed teratogenesis. These prefrontal layer VI neurons would be likely targets because they are developmentally excited and morphologically sculpted by a population of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) that are sensitive to activation and/or desensitization by nicotine. The maturational effects of these α4β2* nAChRs and their susceptibility to desensitization are both profoundly altered by the incorporation of an α5 subunit, encoded by the chrna5 gene. Here, we investigate nicotine teratogenesis in layer VI neurons of wildtype and α5(-/-) mice. In vivo chronic nicotine exposure during development significantly modified apical dendrite morphology and nAChR currents, compared with vehicle control. The direction of the changes was dependent on chrna5 genotype. Surprisingly, neurons from wildtype mice treated with in vivo nicotine resembled those from α5(-/-) mice treated with vehicle, maintaining into adulthood a morphological phenotype characteristic of immature mice together with reduced nAChR currents. In α5(-/-) mice, however, developmental in vivo nicotine tended to normalize both adult morphology and nAChR currents. These findings suggest that chrna5 genotype can determine the effect of developmental in vivo nicotine on the prefrontal cortex. In wildtype mice, the lasting alterations to the morphology and nAChR activation of prefrontal layer VI neurons are teratogenic changes consistent with the attention deficits observed following developmental nicotine exposure.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. PMID: 24055499 Funding information This work was supported by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: MOP 89825 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: 89825-1 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: 83422-2
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.311 | 0.110 |
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".