Characterization of biosynthesis and modes of action of prostaglandin E<sub>2</sub>and prostacyclin in guinea pig mesenteric lymphatic vessels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rhythmical transient constrictions of the lymphatic vessels provide the means for efficient lymph drainage and interstitial tissue fluid balance. This activity is critical during inflammation, to avoid or limit oedema resulting from increased vascular permeability, mediated by the release of various inflammatory mediators. In this study, we investigated the mechanisms by which prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2)) and prostacyclin modulate lymphatic contractility in isolated guinea pig mesenteric lymphatic vessels. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Quantitative RT-PCR was used to assess the expression of mRNA for enzymes and receptors involved in the production and action of PGE(2) and prostacyclin in mesenteric collecting lymphatic vessels. Frequency and amplitude of lymphatic vessel constriction were measured in the presence of these prostaglandins and the role of their respective EP and IP receptors assessed. KEY RESULTS: Prostaglandin E(2) and prostacyclin decreased concentration-dependently the frequency, without affecting the amplitude, of lymphatic constriction. Data obtained in the presence of the EP(4) receptor antagonists, GW627368x (1 microM) and AH23848B (30 microM) and the IP receptor antagonist CAY10441 (0.1 microM) suggest that PGE(2) predominantly activates EP(4), whereas prostacyclin mainly stimulates IP receptors. Inhibition of responses to either prostaglandin with H89 (10 microM) or glibenclamide (1 microM) suggested a role for the activation of protein kinase A and ATP-sensitive K(+) channels. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings characterized the inhibition of lymphatic pumping induced by PGE(2) or prostacyclin in guinea pig mesenteric lymphatics. This action is likely to impair oedema resolution and to contribute to the pro-inflammatory actions of these prostaglandins.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".