Remarkably long-lasting tachyphylaxis of pain responses to ET-1: evidence against central nervous system involvementThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the two-part special issue entitled 20 Years of Endothelin Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A profound tachyphylaxis of the acute nocifensive flinching (pain) response to subcutaneous injection of endothelin-1 (ET-1) into the hind paw footpad is shown by the reduced response to a second injection. Flinching from the second injection was 20% +/- 5%, 57% +/- 18%, 79% +/- 35%, and 100% +/- 17% of that from the first injection (both 200 micromol/L, 2 nmol) at respective intervals of 24, 30, 48, and 72 h. Inhibition of afferent impulses by local anesthesia of the sciatic nerve, reducing initial flinching to 6%-13% of control, did not affect the tachyphylaxis for the second injection at 24 h. There was no cross-desensitization between formalin and ET-1 injected sequentially into the same paw. Suppression of descending inhibitory effects from endogenous opiates by naloxone (5-8 mg/kg, i.p.), given 30 min before the second ET-1 injection, did not prevent tachyphylaxis. Diffuse effects caused by an initial subcutaneous ET-1 injection into the tail or forepaw resulted in sensitization of the response to ET-1 in the hind paw, rather than tachyphylaxis. In contrast, selective inhibition of local ETA receptors during the initial administration of ET-1, by the antagonist BQ-123 (3.2 mmol/L), reduced tachyphylaxis of nocifensive flinching. Therefore, prolonged pain tachyphylaxis is not due to reduced responsiveness of the CNS, but rather depends on the functional sensitivity or availability of peripheral ET(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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".