Alpha-Adrenoceptors in Vascular Smooth Muscle: All Is Not Well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of binding interactions and contractile responses of vascular muscles at alpha 1- and alpha 2-adrenoceptors revealed the following. (1) Agonists at alpha 1- and alpha 2-adrenoceptors may achieve selectivity by virtue of different efficacies despite similar affinities at the two receptors as well as by differing affinities. This implies that their potencies in binding studies may not correlate with potencies in response and that an agonist may produce positive or negative interactions by occupying both alpha 1- and alpha 2-receptors. (2) Agonists at alpha 2-adrenoceptors have the ability in some vascular muscles to release internal Ca2+ (implying an inositol triphosphate mechanism) as well as open Ca2+ channels. However, their contractile abilities are not closely related to function of Na+/H+ or Na+/Ca2+ exchange sites. Amiloride derivatives probably inhibit contractile effects of alpha-agonists and K+ elevation by an action at sites distal to the receptor or Ca channels. (3) The failure of alpha 2-agonists to contract arteries in vitro is not related to the absence of these receptors but most likely to their uncoupling from contractile responses, possibly owing to changes related to the in vitro condition (loss of modulating endogenous substances present in vivo such as angiotensin II or endothelins or to changed physical conditions such as may alter function of stretch-activated channels).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".