Correspondence between gene expression and neurotransmitter receptor and transporter density in the human brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurotransmitter receptors modulate signaling between neurons. Thus, neurotransmitter receptors and transporters play a key role in shaping brain function. Due to the lack of comprehensive neurotransmitter receptor/transporter density datasets, microarray gene expression measuring mRNA transcripts is often used as a proxy for receptor densities. In the present report, we comprehensively test the spatial correlation between gene expression and protein density for a total of 27 neurotransmitter receptors, receptor binding-sites, and transporters across 9 different neurotransmitter systems, using both PET and autoradiography radioligand-based imaging modalities. We find poor spatial correspondences between gene expression and density for all neurotransmitter receptors and transporters except four single-protein metabotropic receptors (5-HT1A, CB1, D2, and MOR). These expression-density associations are related to gene differential stability and can vary between cortical and subcortical structures. Altogether, we recommend using direct measures of receptor and transporter density when relating neurotransmitter systems to brain structure and function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".