Fiber Distribution and Myelination of Dopaminergic Neurons in the Medial Forebrain Bundle of a Rodent Depression Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been hypothesized that the rapid/long-lasting antidepressant action observed following medial forebrain bundle DBS in clinical trials of Treatment-Resistant Depression patients could partially be driven by modulation of the midbrain-to-forebrain dopaminergic fibers. The study investigated the spatial distribution and myelination status of dopaminergic fibers within the rodent equivalent structure in a preclinical depression model, the Flinders Sensitive Line (FSL). Fixed, sliced brain sections were double stained with anti-tyrosine hydroxylase/anti-dopamine-β-hydroxylase antibodies to distinguish dopaminergic from noradrenergic fibers, and with anti-tyrosine hydroxylase/anti-myelin antibodies to specifically investigate myelination. Quantification was done at six predefined segments. The dopaminergic fibers coursing through the medial forebrain bundle were small diameter, unmyelinated and mainly restricted to the dorsolateral quadrant on the AP axis. Analyses across six predefined planes revealed significantly fewer dopaminergic fibers in FSL males (vs control males, and vs. FSL females) at AP -2.8 mm, the segment corresponding to the medial forebrain bundle DBS target in the rat. No differences were observed elsewhere along the medial forebrain bundle. Previously reported differences in stimulation-evoked dopamine release in the FSLs could be due to differences in the numbers of recruited dopaminergic fibers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".