Nitric Oxide Synthase Activity and Expression in Experimental Diabetic Neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The changes of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activity and expression in experimental diabetic neuropathy have not been examined. Increases in ganglia NOS might be similar to those that follow axotomy, whereas declines in endothelial NOS (eNOS) and immunological NOS (iNOS) might explain dysfunction of microvessels or macrophages. In this work, we studied NOS activity in lumbar dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of rats with both short- and long-term experimental streptozotocin-induced diabetes and correlated it with expression of each of the 3 NOS isoforms. NOS enzymatic activity in DRG increased after 12 months of diabetes. This increase, however, was not accompanied by an increase in neuronal NOS immunohistochemistry or mRNA. Immunohistochemical and RT-PCR studies did not identify changes of eNOS expression in 12-month sciatic nerves or DRG from diabetics. Two-month diabetic DRG had increased eNOS mRNA and there was novel eNOS labeling of capsular DRG and perineurial cells. iNOS mRNA levels were lower in diabetics at both time points in peripheral nerves but were unchanged in DRG. Diabetic ganglia showed an increase in NOS activity not explained by novel NOS isoform synthesis. The increases may compensate for NO "quenching" by endproducts of glycosylation. Declines in iNOS may indicate impaired macrophage function.
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".