{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03261927945472249, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009737098344693282, 'mean_word_length': 4.922190201729107, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Subfornical Organ: A Dipsogenic Site of Action of Angiotension II.

study, the recovery of drinking after the lesion is greater, albeit still incomplete. However, in this study, the 100or 500ng doses of AII are usually considered excessive (12). It is possible that portions of the injected dose interacted with residual SFO tissue to give rise to the observed drinking. If a true recovery had occurred, it could have resulted from AII interaction with remaining SFO tissue (4). Buggy et al. report that 3 days after SFO lesions there is a deficit in lateral ventricular (LV), but not in third ventricular (III-V), All-induced drinking (5). In our experience, III-V placements near the optic recess would be ideal for delivery, via cerebrospinal fluid diffusion, of AII to the remaining SFO tissue. Alternatively, partial occlusion of the interventricular foramen, as noted above, could be responsible for deficits in LV or preoptic AII drinking. If the quantities of All reaching the SFO after Ill-V injection were larger than those reaching the SFO after LV delivery, then the differences in elicited drinking may reflect dose-response differences in All drinking (5, 12). Until the amount of AII actually entering the SFO in the two cases is known, one cannot rule out its involvement on these grounds. In addition, the use of intraventricular injection (5), rather than intravenous (7) or direct SFO (4) application of All, makes it difficult to compare the results of Buggy et al. with our findings. Finally, the authors injected cold cream into the third ventricle to reproduce the effect of ventricular obstruction. We believe that this manipulation may obscure rather than clarify the difficult and subtle localization problems discussed here and in their report (5). Although a more detailed report has appeared (13), we are still concerned about the nonspecific damage resulting from these injection procedures, and the multiple cannulas in an individual animal's brain. We wish to emphasize that considerable evidence indicates that the SFO is