Nitric oxide production in the ventilatory muscles in response to acute resistive loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of muscle activation on muscle nitric oxide (NO) production remains controversial. Whereas NO release increases in in vitro activated muscles and in vivo limb muscles, diaphragmatic NO synthase (NOS) activity declines after 3 h of inspiratory resistive loading (IRL). We tested in this study the hypotheses that acute IRL decreases diaphragmatic NO derivatives levels and reduces protein expression of neuronal (nNOS), endothelial (eNOS), and inducible (iNOS) NO synthases, as well as 3-nitrotyrosine formation. Anesthetized, tracheostomized, spontaneously breathing adult rats were subjected to IRL (50% of the maximum inspiratory pressure) for 1, 3, or 6 h. Quietly breathing rats served as controls. After 3 h of IRL, muscle eNOS and nNOS protein levels rose by 80 and 60% of control values, respectively. Whereas eNOS expression did not change any further, nNOS expression reached 550% of control values after 6 h of IRL. Strong iNOS protein expression was detected in the diaphragms after 6 h of IRL. Total NO derivatives levels in the diaphragm declined during IRL as a result of reduction in nitrate, nitrite, and nitrosothiols. Diaphragmatic protein tyrosine nitration decreased in response to IRL, and this reduction was mainly due to reduced tyrosine nitration of enolase and aldolase. We conclude that diaphragmatic NO derivatives levels decline in response to IRL and that the rise in diaphragmatic NOS protein expression may be a compensatory response designed to counterbalance the decline in NOS activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".