Endothelin-1-Induced Pulmonary Vasoreactivity Is Regulated by ET<sub>A</sub> and ET<sub>B</sub> Receptor Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Roles of endothelin (ET) receptors (R) and of the endothelium on ET-1-induced pulmonary vasoreactivity are subjects of debate. This stems from endothelial ET(B)-R that can release both vasodilators and vasoconstrictors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the roles of the endothelium and of ET-Rs on ET-1-induced pulmonary vasoreactivity. METHODS: Pharmacological experiments were performed in isolated rat lungs and in pulmonary resistance arteries. RESULTS: In isolated lungs, ET-1 and the selective ET(B)-R agonist sarafotoxin 6c (S6c) induced a similar vasoconstriction. ET-1 constriction was reduced by a selective ET(A)-R antagonist; however, the selective ET(B)-R antagonist had no significant effect. In preconstricted lungs, ET(B)-R stimulation caused mild vasodilation at low concentrations but severe vasoconstriction at higher concentrations. In isolated arteries, responses to ET-1 and S6c were not different and unaffected by removal of endothelium. Interestingly, concentrations of ET(A)-R and ET(B)-R antagonists that only mildly reduced ET-1 vasoconstriction when used alone, prevented maximal constriction and greatly reduced vascular sensitivity to ET-1 when used in combination. CONCLUSION: In rat lungs, both ET(A)-R and ET(B)-R contribute to ET-1-induced pulmonary vasoconstriction with evidence of interaction between receptors. A mild vasodilator role of the endothelial ET(B)-R is evident only at low agonist concentration and when baseline vascular tone is increased.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".