MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966321381 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0703758

Selective phenylalkylamine block of <i>I</i><sub>Kr</sub> over other K<sup>+</sup> currents in guinea‐pig ventricular myocytes

2000· article· en· W1966321381 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen E. Jones, Sergey Missan, Pavel Zhabyeyev, Terence F. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerapamilChemistryInward-rectifier potassium ion channelMyocyteGuinea pigBiophysicsPotassium channelInternal medicineEndocrinologyIon channelCalciumMedicineBiologyBiochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies on verapamil and D600 have established that the Ca2+‐channel blockers also inhibit delayed‐rectifier K+ currents in cardiac tissues and myocytes. However, estimated IC50 values range over two to three orders of concentration, and it is unclear whether this reflects a high selectivity by one or both of the phenylalkylamines for particular K+ channels. The purpose of the present study was to determine the concentration‐dependent actions of verapamil and D600 on three defined cardiac K+ currents. Guinea‐pig ventricular myocytes in the conventional whole‐cell configuration were bathed with normal Tyrode's or K+‐free solution, and pulsed from −80 mV for measurement of the effects of 0.01 μM to 3 mM verapamil and D600 on the inwardly‐rectifying K+ current (IKl) and the two delayed‐rectifier K+ currents, rapidly‐activating IKr and slowly‐activating IKs. The phenylalkylamines inhibited both inward‐ and outward‐directed IKl. The IC50 values for outward IKl were approximately 220 μM. Verapamil and D600 were approximately equipotent inhibitors of the delayed‐rectifier K+ currents. They inhibited IKr with IC50 near 3 μM, and IKs with IC50 280 μM. These results are discussed in relation to previous findings on K+ currents and to the clinical actions of the drugs. British Journal of Pharmacology (2000) 131, 1809–1816; doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0703758

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PharmacologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207