Human esophageal smooth muscle cells express muscarinic receptor subtypes M<sub>1</sub>through M<sub>5</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Receptor characterization in human esophageal smooth muscle is limited by tissue availability. We used human esophageal smooth muscle cells in culture to examine the expression and function of muscarinic receptors. Primary cultures were established using cells isolated by enzymatic digestion of longitudinal muscle (LM) and circular muscle (CM) obtained from patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer. Cultured cells grew to confluence after 10-14 days in medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum and stained positively for anti-smooth muscle specific alpha-actin. mRNA encoding muscarinic receptor subtypes M(1)-M(5) was identified by RT-PCR. The expression of corresponding protein for all five subtypes was confirmed by immunoblotting and immunocytochemistry. Functional responses were assessed by measuring free intracellular Ca(2+) concentration ([Ca(2+)](i)) using fura 2 fluorescence. Basal [Ca(2+)](i), which was 135 +/- 22 nM, increased transiently to 543 +/- 29 nM in response to 10 microM ACh in CM cells (n = 8). This response was decreased <95% by 0.01 microM 4-diphenylacetoxy-N-methylpiperidine, a M(1)/M(3)-selective antagonist, whereas 0.1 microM methoctramine, a M(2)/M(4)-selective antagonist, and 0.1 microM pirenzepine, a M(1)-selective antagonist, had more modest effects. LM and CM cells showed similar results. We conclude that human smooth muscle cells in primary culture express five muscarinic receptor subtypes and respond to ACh with a rise in [Ca(2+)](i) mediated primarily by the M(3) receptor and involving release of Ca(2+) from intracellular stores. This culture model provides a useful tool for further study of esophageal physiology.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".