SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The dopaminergic system of <i>Caenorhabditis elegans</i>.

R Soc Open Sci · 2025-10-22

DOI: 10.1098/rsos.250843PMID: 41127805

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Dopamine is a highly conserved neurotransmitter that plays a pivotal role in regulating a wide array of behaviours. In vertebrates, it is best known for its involvement in motor control, motivation, reward processing and learning. Dysregulation of dopaminergic signalling is implicated in several human neurological and psychiatric disorders, most notably Parkinson's disease. The fundamental importance of dopamine has driven researchers to study it across a range of model organisms. Among these, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has proven particularly valuable. With a compact and fully mapped nervous system, genetic tractability and transparent body, C. elegans provides a powerful system to unravel the mechanisms of dopamine synthesis, signalling, receptor function and behavioural modulation. Like in mammals, dopamine is produced by a small number of neurons, yet it governs complex behaviours including locomotion, learning and responses to environmental cues. In this review, we explore the breadth of research on dopaminergic signalling in C. elegans, focusing on its synthesis, receptor signalling and downstream effects on behaviour. By integrating findings across molecular, cellular and circuit levels, we aim to highlight both the conserved features of dopamine signalling and the unique insights gained from studying it in this model organism.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.