MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391340931 · doi:10.3390/psychoactives3010004

The Effects of Psilocybin on Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Inflammation in THP-1 Human Macrophages

2024· article· en· W4391340931 on OpenAlexafffund
Esmaeel Ghasemi Gojani, Bo Wang, Dongping Li, Olga Kovalchuk, Igor Kovalchuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychoactives · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersMitacs
KeywordsTHP1 cell lineLipopolysaccharideInflammationPsilocybinHallucinogenMedicineImmunologyBiologyPharmacologyCell culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psilocybin, an innate compound produced by mushrooms belonging to the Psilocybe genus, is primarily known for its agonistic effects on the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor. This receptor’s functioning is involved in many neurological processes. In the context of this research, our primary aim was to comprehensively investigate the influence of psilocybin as a serotonin receptor agonist on the intricate cascade of events involved in THP-1 macrophages stimulated by lipopolysaccharide (LPS). THP-1 monocyte cells were subjected to differentiation into macrophages through a controlled incubation with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA). The next step involved the induction of an inflammatory response by exposing THP-1 macrophages to 500 ng/mL LPS for 4 h. Subsequently, we triggered the activation of the second phase of the NLRP3 inflammasome by introducing adenosine triphosphate (ATP) immediately following LPS stimulation. Our findings have revealed a dose-dependent inverse correlation between psilocybin exposure and the production of LPS-induced proinflammatory cytokines and proteins. Our work indicates that psilocybin likely mediates these responses by influencing key signaling pathways, including NF-κB, IL-6/TYK2/STAT3, and TYK2/STAT1.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychoactivesSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207