Sedative potential of palmatine chloride in thiopental sodium-induced chicks: evidence from in vivo and in Silico studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the sedative impact of palmatine chloride (PME) in thiopental sodium-induced sleeping chicks and its underlying molecular mechanism by using in vivo and in silico approaches. Chicks received PME per orally (p.o.) at doses of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 mg/kg per body weight (b.w.), while diazepam (DZP) (2 mg/kg) served as a positive control and vehicle as a negative control. For the purpose of evaluating the experimental compounds synergistic or antagonistic effects, a combination of PME and DZP was administered to the chicks. After thirty minutes, thiopental sodium (40 mg/kg, intraperitoneal (i.p.)) was administered to induce sleep, and latency to sleep onset and sleep duration were measured. In vivo results showed that PME reduced sleep latency and prolonged sleep duration in a dose-dependent manner, with the combination therapy producing a significant enhancement of these effects. In silico docking revealed PME binding to gamma-aminobutyric acid A (GABAA) receptor α1 and β2 subunits (–7.2 kcal/mol) with shared amino acids. Pharmacokinetic and toxicity analyses suggested favorable drug-like properties. These results indicate PME’s sedative potential, alone or with DZP, likely via GABAergic modulation, warranting further functional validation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".