Regional differences in nitrergic innervation of the smooth muscle of murine lower oesophageal sphincter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anatomical and pharmacological studies have demonstrated that the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) is not a simple homogenous circular muscle with uniform innervation. Regional differences have been demonstrated in several species including humans. We investigated, for the first time in mice LES, regionally distinct physiological and pharmacological characteristics of the neuromusculature. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Conventional intracellular recordings and pharmacological techniques were employed to evaluate electrical properties and functional innervation of smooth muscle cells. Results from CD1 (control), nNOS((-/-)) and eNOS((-/-)) genetic knockout mice were compared. KEY RESULTS: Smooth muscle of sling and clasp LES displayed unitary membrane potentials of 1- 4 mV. Transmural nerve stimulation produced a monophasic inhibitory junction potential (IJP) in the sling, whereas in the clasp a biphasic IJP, consisting of a brief IJP followed by a long-lasting slow IJP (lsIJP), was induced. Pharmacological interventions and genetically modified mice were used to demonstrate a monophasic apamin-sensitive (purinergic) component in both LES regions. However, the nitrergic IJP was monophasic in the sling and biphasic in the clasp. Unitary membrane potentials and IJPs were not different in CD1 and eNOS((-/-)) mice, suggesting no involvement of myogenic NOS. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: These data in mouse LES indicate that there are previously unreported regional differences in the IJP and that both the apamin-resistant monophasic and biphasic IJPs are mediated primarily by nitrergic innervation.
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".