Influence of β‐adrenoceptor tone on the cardioprotective efficacy of adenosine A<sub>1</sub> receptor activation in isolated working rat hearts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the role of beta-adrenoceptors in the cardioprotective and metabolic actions of adenosine A(1) receptor stimulation. Isolated paced (300 beats min(-1)) working rat hearts were perfused with Krebs-Henseleit solution containing 1.2 mM palmitate. Left ventricular minute work (LV work), O(2) consumption and rates of glycolysis and glucose oxidation were measured during reperfusion (30 min) following global ischaemia (30 min) as well as during aerobic conditions. Relative to untreated hearts, N(6)-cyclohexyladenosine (CHA, 0.5 microM) improved post-ischaemic LV work (158%) and reduced glycolysis and proton production (53 and 42%, respectively). CHA+propranolol (1 microM) had similar beneficial effects, while propranolol alone did not affect post-ischaemic LV work or glucose metabolism. Isoprenaline (10 nM) impaired post-ischaemic function and after 25 min ischaemia recovery was comparable with 30 min ischaemia in untreated hearts (41 and 53%, respectively). Relative to isoprenaline alone, CHA+isoprenaline improved recovery of LV work (181%) and reduced glycolysis and proton production (64 and 60%, respectively). In aerobic hearts, CHA, propranolol or CHA+propranolol had no effect on LV work or glucose oxidation. Glycolysis was inhibited by CHA, propranolol and CHA+propranolol (50, 53 and 52%, respectively). Isoprenaline-induced increases in heart rate, glycolysis and proton production were attenuated by CHA (85, 57 and 53%, respectively). The cardioprotective efficacy of CHA was unaffected by antagonism or activation of beta-adrenoceptors. Thus, the mechanism of protection by adenosine A(1) receptor activation does not involve functional antagonism of beta-adrenoceptors.
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".