Endocannabinoid and nitric oxide interactions in the brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endogenous cannabinoids (eCBs) and nitric oxide (NO) are classical retrograde transmitters that modulate synaptic function throughout the brain. Although much is known about how these signals individually control synaptic activity and behavior, accumulating evidence suggests that they can also interact in a multitude of ways in the brain and beyond. Here, we present evidence for interactions between endogenous cannabinoids and nitric oxide in the brain. Specifically, we describe the effects of eCBs on NO synthesis and downstream signaling and in turn, we discuss how NO alters eCB levels and signaling pathways. We also provide an overview on how these transmitters work together or in opposition at the same synapses. This information will further our understanding of how two important, ubiquitous signals interact in the brain to ultimately affect neural function and behavior. Because eCBs and NO are involved in many physiological and pathological phenomena, understanding how these transmitters interact in non-human animals could lead to important therapeutic interventions in humans that potentially target both systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".