MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399712905 · doi:10.1101/2024.06.15.599163

Dopamine D1 receptor expression in prefrontal parvalbumin neurons influences distractibility across species

2024· preprint· en· W4399712905 on OpenAlexaff
MKP Joyce, T. Ivanov, FM Krienen, JF Mitchell, Sisi Ma, Wataru Inoue, AS Nandy, D. Datta, Alvaro Duque, José-Luís Pérez-Arellano, Rishi Gupta, Guillermo González‐Burgos, David A. Lewis, Neda Šestan, S A McCarroll, Julio Martínez-Trujillo, Seán Froudist‐Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceDopamineParvalbuminInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPsychologyDopamine receptorDopamine receptor D1

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Marmosets and macaques are common non-human primate models of cognition, yet marmosets appear more distractible and perform worse in cognitive tasks. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) is pivotal for sustained attention, and prior macaque research suggests that dopaminergic modulation and inhibitory parvalbumin (PV) neurons could contribute to distractibility. Thus, we compared the two species using a visual fixation task with distractors, performed molecular and anatomical analyses in dlPFC, and linked functional microcircuitry with cognitive performance using computational modeling. We found that marmosets are more distractible than macaques, and that marmoset dlPFC PV neurons contain higher levels of dopamine-1 receptor (D1R) transcripts and protein, similar to their levels in mice. The modeling indicated that higher D1R expression in marmoset dlPFC PV neurons may increase distractibility by making dlPFC microcircuits more vulnerable to disruptions of their task-related persistent activity, especially when dopamine is released in dlPFC in response to unexpected salient stimuli. Declaration of Interests The authors have nothing to declare. Author Contributions AFTA, MKPJ, TGI, and SFW designed the study; MKPJ collected and analyzed anatomical data; TGI designed the computational framework with guidance from RG and SFW; TGI performed the modeling simulations and data analysis; FM and SAM collected and analyzed transcriptomics data; GGB and DAL provided macaque brain tissue for transcriptomics performed by FM; SM and NS collected and analyzed phylogenetic transcriptomics dataset; JFM and ASN performed and analyzed the behavioral testing; IW and JMT provided the marmoset tissue for immunofluorescence; MKPJ, TGI, SFW, and AFTA wrote the first draft and all authors revised and edited subsequent drafts of the article.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity ResearchFrench-language works237,207