Both endothelin-A and endothelin-B receptors are present on adult rat cardiac ventricular myocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endothelin-A (ET(A)) and endothelin-B (ET(B)) receptors have been demonstrated in intact heart and cardiac membranes. ET(A) receptors have been demonstrated on adult ventricular myocytes. The aim of the present study was to determine the presence of ET(B) and the relative contribution of this receptor subtype to total endothelin-1 (ET-1) binding on adult ventricular myocytes. Saturation binding experiments indicated that ET-1 bound to a single population of receptors (Kd = 0.52 +/- 0.13 nM, n = 4) with an apparent maximum binding (Bmax) of 2.10 +/- 0.25 sites (x 10(5))/cell (n = 4). Competition experiments using 40 pM [125I]ET-1 and nonradioactive ET-1 revealed a Ki of 660 +/- 71 pM (n = 10) and a Hill coefficient (nH) of 0.99 +/- 0.10 (n = 10). A selective ET(A) antagonist, BQ610, displaced 80% of the bound [125I]ET-1. No displacement was observed by concentrations of an ET(B)-selective antagonist, BQ788, up to 1.0 microM. However, in the presence of 1.0 microM BQ610, BQ788 inhibited the remaining [125I]ET-1 binding. Similarly, in the presence of 1.0 microM BQ788, BQ610 inhibited the remaining specific [125I]ET-1 binding. Binding of an ET(B1)-selective agonist, [125I]IRL-1620, confirmed the presence of ET(B). ET(B) bound to ET-1 irreversibly, whereas binding to ET(A) demonstrated both reversible and irreversible components, and BQ610 and BQ788 bound reversibly. Reducing the incubation temperature to 0 degrees C did not alter the irreversible component of ET-1 binding. Hence, both ET(A) and ET(B) receptors are present on intact adult rat ventricular myocytes, and the ratio of ET(A):ET(B) binding sites is 4:1. Both receptor subtypes bind to ET-1 by a two-step association involving the formation of a tight receptor-ligand complex; however, the kinetics of ET-1 binding to ET(A) versus ET(B) differ.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".