Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28487067›Full record

ArticleNeuropharmacology2017

Selective and interactive effects of D

Sarah N Isherwood, Trevor W Robbins, Janet R Nicholson, Jeffrey W Dalley, Anton Pekcec

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Which came first: Cannabis use or deficits in impulse control?Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Neural circuitry and mechanisms of waiting impulsivity: relevance to addiction.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Targeting the dopamine DBritish journal of pharmacology · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah N IsherwoodBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Div. Research Germany, Birkendorfer Strasse 65, 88397 Biberach an der Riss, Germany; Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.
Trevor W RobbinsBehavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.
Janet R NicholsonBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Div. Research Germany, Birkendorfer Strasse 65, 88397 Biberach an der Riss, Germany.
Jeffrey W DalleyBehavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.
Anton PekcecBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Div. Research Germany, Birkendorfer Strasse 65, 88397 Biberach an der Riss, Germany. Electronic address: anton.pekcec@boehringer-ingelheim.com.
Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DEUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0001354Medical Research Council G0701500Medical Research Council G1000183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetabotropic glutamate receptor 4 (mGluR4) and dopamine D

methodsRats were trained on the five-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT) of sustained visual attention and segregated according to low, mid, and high levels of motor impulsivity (LI, MI and HI, respectively), with unscreened rats used as an additional control group. A separate group of rats was trained on a delay discounting task (DDT) to assess choice impulsivity.

resultsSystemic administration of Cpd11 dose-dependently increased motor impulsivity and impaired attentional accuracy on the 5-CSRTT in all groups tested. Eticlopride selectively attenuated the increase in impulsivity induced by Cpd11, but not the accompanying attentional impairment, at doses that had no significant effect on behavioural performance when administered alone. Cpd11 also decreased choice impulsivity on the DDT (i.e. increased preference for the large, delayed reward) and decreased locomotor activity.

conclusionsThese findings demonstrate that mGluR4s, in conjunction with D

Indexed as

AnimalsAttentionCyclic AMPDelay DiscountingDopamine D2 Receptor AntagonistsDose-Response Relationship, DrugExcitatory Amino Acid AgonistsImpulsive BehaviorMaleMotor ActivityPsychotropic DrugsPyrimidinesRatsReceptors, Dopamine D2Receptors, Metabotropic GlutamateSalicylamides4-styrylpyrimidin-2-ylamineCyclic AMPDopamine D2 Receptor AntagonistsDRD2 protein, rateticloprideExcitatory Amino Acid Agonistsmetabotropic glutamate receptor 4Psychotropic DrugsPyrimidinesReceptors, Dopamine D2Receptors, Metabotropic GlutamateSalicylamidesStyrenesD(2) receptorsd-Amphetamine (PubChem CID: 5826)DopamineEticlopride hydrochloride (PubChem CID: 6917728)GlutamateIndirect pathwaymGluR4Striatum

Identifiers

PMID28487067
PMCPMC5522528
OpenAlexW2610713520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.