A novel CB receptor GPR55 and its ligands are involved in regulation of gut movement in rodents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was to investigate the effects of the novel cannabinoid receptor - G protein-coupled receptor 55 (GPR55) - and its ligands O-1602 and cannabidiol (CBD) on gastrointestinal (GI) motility in rodents. METHODS: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was used in vivo to produce the model of septic ileus. The intestinal motility was measured by recording myoelectrical activity of jejunum in rats, and by measuring GI transit with a charcoal marker in mice, in presence of O-1602 or CBD. Inflammatory response was assessed serologically and histologically. The expression and distribution of GPR55 in the different parts of rat intestine were investigated by real-time PCR and immunohistochemistry. In vitro, the effects of the drugs on the GI movement were investigated by measuring the contraction of the intestinal muscle strips in organ bath, and the intracellular responses of the muscle cells with microelectrode technique. KEY RESULTS: G protein-coupled receptor 55 was expressed in different parts of rat intestine. Lipopolysaccharide significantly inhibited the intestinal motility, increased inflammatory cytokines and GPR55 expression. Pretreatment with CBD normalized LPS-induced hypomotility and improved the inflammatory responses serologically and histologically. Both O-1602 and CBD counteracted LPS-induced disturbances of the gut contraction, but had no effect on the membrane potential of the muscle cells, while cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonist AM251 and cannabinoid type 2 receptor antagonist AM630 increased the potential. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: G protein-coupled receptor 55 existed throughout the whole intestine of rats. O-1602 or CBD selectively normalized the motility disturbances. Possible mechanisms involved systemic anti-inflammation and the regulation of myoelectrical activity of the intestine.
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) | 0.002 | 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".