Role of P1 purinergic receptors in myocardial ischemia sensory transduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the role that cardiac sensory P(1) purinergic (adenosine A(1) or A(2)) receptors play in transducing myocardial ischemia. METHODS: Porcine nodose ganglion cardiac sensory neuron adenosine A(1) or A(2) receptor function was studied in situ during control states as well as in the presence of the peptides bradykinin and substance P or focal ventricular ischemia. The responses of porcine nodose ganglion cardiac and non-cardiac afferent neuronal somata to adenosine were also studied in vitro. RESULTS: Local application of A(1) or A(2) adenosine receptor agonists modified the activity generated by ventricular sensory neurites associated with 70 and 74% of identified nodose ganglion cardiac afferent somata in situ, respectively, exciting most neurons. In contrast, adenosine reduced the excitability of nodose ganglion cardiac afferent neuronal somata in vitro. Bradykinin and substance P affected 56 and 63%, respectively, of tested afferent neurons. The capacity of ventricular sensory neurites to transduce signals relating to these peptides was virtually eliminated by the presence of P(1) purinergic receptor antagonists. So was their capacity to transduce focal ventricular ischemia. Since most cardiac sensory neurites responded differently to adenosine in vivo than did cardiac afferent neuronal somata in vitro, it appears that the transduction properties of cardiac afferent neurons need to be characterized in situ. CONCLUSIONS: Most ventricular sensory neurites associated with nodose ganglion afferent neurons possess adenosine A(1) and/or A(2) receptors that play a primary role in transducing myocardial ischemic events to central neurons. These data support clinical observations implicating cardiac sensory purinoceptors in transducing myocardial ischemic events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".