Distinct modulation of the endothelin-1 pathway in<i>iNOS</i><sup>−/−</sup>and<i>eNOS</i><sup>−/−</sup>miceThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the special issue (part 2 of 2) on Forefronts in Endothelin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that constitutive endothelial NO synthase (eNOS) and inducible NO synthase (iNOS) have opposite effects on the regulation of endothelin and its receptors. We therefore sought to determine whether deletions of iNOS or eNOS genes in mice modulate pressor responses to endothelin and the expression of ETA and ETB receptors in a similar fashion. Despite unchanged baseline hemodynamic parameters, anesthetized iNOS-/- mice displayed reduced pressor responses to endothelin-1, but not to that of IRL-1620, a selective ETB agonist. Protein content of cardiac ETA receptors was reduced in iNOS-/- mice compared with wild-type mice, but that of ETB receptors was unchanged. Anesthetized eNOS-/- mice presented a hypertensive state, accompanied by an enhanced pressor response to intravenous endothelin-1, whereas the pressor response to IRL-1620 was reduced. Protein levels were also found to be increased for ETA receptors, but reduced for ETB receptors, in cardiac tissues of eNOS-/- mice. In conscious animals, both strains responded equally to the hypotensive effect of an ETA antagonist, ABT-627, whereas orally administered A-192621, an ETB antagonist, increased MAP to a greater extent in eNOS-/- than in wild-type mice. Furthermore, significant levels of immunoreactive endothelin were found in mesenteric arteries in eNOS-/- but not in iNOS-/- or wild-type congeners. Our study shows that repression of iNOS or eNOS has differential effects on endothelin-1 and its receptors. We have also shown that the heart is the main organ in which iNOS or eNOS repression induces important alterations in protein content of endothelin receptors in adult mice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".