MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297983669 · doi:10.17615/hcas-py92

Genetic NMDA Receptor Deficiency Disrupts Acute and Chronic Effects of Cocaine but not Amphetamine

2020· article· en· W4297983669 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Linda Dykstra, Amy J. Ramsey, Marc G. Caron, Ivan O. Medvedev, Aki Laakso, Tatyana D. Sotnikova, Raul R. Gainetdinov, Ali Salahpour, Michel Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Drug AbuseCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/S
KeywordsAmphetamineNMDA receptorMedicineNeuroscienceReceptorPharmacologyPsychologyInternal medicineDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NMDA receptor-mediated glutamate transmission is required for several forms of neuronal plasticity. Its role in the neuronal responses to addictive drugs is an ongoing subject of investigation. We report here that the acute locomotor-stimulating effect of cocaine is absent in NMDA-receptor deficient mice (NR1-KD). In contrast, their acute responses to amphetamine and to direct dopamine receptor agonists are not significantly altered. The striking attenuation of cocaine's acute effects is not likely explained by alterations in the dopaminergic system of NR1-KD mice, since most parameters of pre-and post-synaptic dopamine function are unchanged. Consistent with the behavioral findings, cocaine induces less c-Fos expression in the striatum of these mice, while amphetamine-induced c-Fos expression is intact. NR1-KD mice can become sensitized and display conditioned place preference to cocaine; however, these behaviors are attenuated and develop more slowly in mutant animals. Our results highlight the importance of NMDA receptor-mediated glutamatergic transmission specifically in cocaine actions, and support a hypothesis that cocaine and amphetamine elicit their effects through differential actions on signaling pathways.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUNC LibrariesSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207