Relationship between in vivo Airway Reactivity and in vitro Responsiveness of Tracheal Smooth Muscle in Inbred Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the in vivo and in vitro airway responses to cholinergic stimulation in two highly inbred strains of rats. Five Fisher and six Lewis rats inhaled aerosols of doubling concentrations of methacholine (MCh). Pulmonary resistance (RL) was measured before and after each MCh inhalation. The concentration of MCh required to double RL (EC200RL MCh) was calculated. Spirally cut tracheal strips were suspended in an organ bath and the isometric tension was recorded. Cumulative concentration-response curves to carbachol were obtained using concentrations ranging from 10(-9) to 10(-3) M in half-log increments. The maximum tension (Tmax) developed and the negative log of the molar concentration required to induce 50% of Tmax (pD2) were calculated. The geometric mean of ED200RL MCh for the Fisher group was significantly lower than that for the Lewis group (0.68 and 2.66 mg/ml, respectively; p less than 0.05). No significant difference was found for Tmax (0.67 +/- 0.11 vs. 0.50 +/- 0.11 g) and pD2 value (6.24 +/- 0.08 vs. 6.21 +/- 0.22 -log M), indicating a similar contraction of tracheal smooth muscle. We therefore conclude that (1) in vivo airway responsiveness is strain-related and genetically determined in the rat; (2) that there is no correlation between in vivo and in vitro airway response to cholinergic stimulation and (3) that intrinsic properties of airway smooth muscle do not account for the differences observed in airway responsiveness in vivo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".