MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of Angiotensin Type-1 and Angiotensin Type-2 Receptors in the Expression of Vascular Integrins in Angiotensin II–Infused Rats

2005· article· en· W1999220157 on OpenAlexafffund
Pascal Brassard, Farhad Amiri, Gaétan Thibault, Ernesto L. Schiffrin

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCell Adhesion Molecules Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health Research
FundersHypertension Canada
KeywordsLosartanAngiotensin IIAngiotensin II receptor type 1Internal medicineEndocrinologyOsteopontinVascular smooth muscleAngiotensin receptorIntegrinReceptorHydralazineRenin–angiotensin systemChemistryMedicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angiotensin II plays an important role in vascular remodeling through effects that involve, in part, interactions of vascular smooth muscle cells with extracellular matrix via integrins, which belong to a family of transmembrane receptors. We hypothesized that angiotensin (Ang) II regulates expression of vascular integrins and their ligands in experimental hypertension. Rats were infused subcutaneously with Ang II and received angiotensin type-1 (AT1) receptor blocker losartan, the AT1/angiotensin type-2 (AT2) [Sar1-Ile8]-Ang II, or the vasodilator hydralazine for 7 days. Osteopontin and integrin subunit expression were evaluated immunohistochemically. Ang II enhanced vascular alpha8, beta1, beta3 integrins and osteopontin expression, which were significantly reduced by losartan, [Sar1-Ile8]-Ang II, and hydralazine. Although Ang II increased vascular alpha5 subunit expression, this was additionally increased by losartan. Losartan was the only treatment that induced alpha1 subunit expression. These results demonstrate that AT1 and AT2 receptors have countervailing effects on vascular integrin subunit expression that may influence their effects on vascular remodeling and extracellular matrix composition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicCell Adhesion Molecules ResearchFrench-language works237,207