MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310056708 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-23495-0

Cannabinoid receptor 2 (Cb2r) mediates cannabinol (CBN) induced developmental defects in zebrafish

2022· article· en· W4310056708 on OpenAlexafffund
Md Ruhul Amin, Kazi Tanveer Ahmed, Declan W. Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZebrafishCannabinolCannabinoid receptorCell biologyCannabinoidReceptorBiologyChemistryGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

-THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN), very little is known about the actions of CBN, the primary oxidative metabolite of THC. Our goal was to determine if CBN exposure during gastrulation alters embryonic development, and if so, does it act via the canonical cannabinoid receptors. Zebrafish embryos were exposed to CBN during gastrulation and exhibited dose-dependent malformations, increased mortality, decreased locomotion and a reduction in motor neuron branching. Moreover, larva showed a significant reduction in the response to sound stimuli. CBN exposure altered the development of hair cells associated with otic vesicles and the lateral line. Pharmacological block of Cb2rs with AM 630 or JTE 907 prevented many of the CBN-induced developmental defects, while block of Cb1rs with AM 251 or CP 945598 had little or no effect. Altogether we show that embryonic exposure to CBN results in alterations in embryonic growth, neuronal and hair cell development, physiology and behavior via Cb2r-mediated mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→