MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133007329

The pharmacological signature of GABAAampus

2004· dissertation· W7133007329 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erin M Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Dundee
KeywordsTonic (physiology)GABAergicHippocampal formationGABAA receptorNeuroactive steroidProtein subunitgamma-Aminobutyric acidAllosteric regulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two forms of GABAergic inhibition exist in the brain: a persistent tonic and transient synaptic inhibition. Mammalian GABAA receptors are hetero-pentameric, ligand-gated, chloride channels assembled from a family of ge;19 related subunits. To test the hypothesis that tonic current in CA1 hippocampal pyramidal neurons is mediated by alpha5 subunit-containing GABA A receptors, we used an assortment of subunit-selective drugs. Previously, we showed that classical benzodiazepines enhance the tonic current. Here, we show that tonic conductance is modulated by the alpha5-selective negative modulator L-655,708 but not by the alpha5-sparing imidazopyridine, zolpidem. Moreover, beta2/3-selective positive allosteric modulators enhance the tonic current where delta-sensitive neurosteroids do not, suggesting that the alpha5 subunit assembles with beta2/3 and gamma subunits to form tonic GABA A receptor complexes in the hippocampus. Deletion of the alpha5 subunit results in a 75% reduction in tonic current. Thus, we attribute tonic inhibition in hippocampal pyramidal neurons to alpha5-containing GABA A receptors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207