MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315642032 · doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2023.123604

An LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous analysis of up to six monoamines from brain tissues

2023· article· en· W4315642032 on OpenAlexafffund
Sejal Davla, Edward Daly, Jenn Nedow, Ari Gritsas, Laura Curran, Lorne Taylor, Donald J. van Meyel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chromatography B · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPharmacological Effects and Assays
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for InnovationMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsMonoamine neurotransmitterOctopamine (neurotransmitter)ChemistryDopamineSerotoninTyramineMelatoninNorepinephrineChromatographyMonoaminergicEndocrinologyBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monoamines are a class of neuromodulators that are crucial for a variety of brain functions, including control of mood, movement, sleep and cognition. From mammals to insects, the nervous system is enriched in monoamines such as dopamine, serotonin and melatonin, analytes which range from being highly polar to non-polar. Here we developed a method using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to quantify in a single run the amounts of six distinct monoamines in extracts from dissected Drosophila and mouse brain tissues. The measured monoamines were dopamine (DA), serotonin (also known as 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)), octopamine (OA, an insect equivalent of norepinephrine), tyramine (TA), melatonin (MT) and N-acetylserotonin (NAS). The analytical range of these monoamines was between 0.25 and 5.0 ng/mL. This quantitative LC-MS/MS methodology has important use for simultaneous measurement of distinct neuroactive monoamines from precious biological specimens.

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)0.001
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 score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chromatography BSame topicPharmacological Effects and AssaysFrench-language works237,207