On the <i>in vitro</i> vasoactivity of bile acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the vasorelaxant action of nine different bile acids and correlated their vasorelaxant activity with their individual indices for hydrophobicity or lipophilicity. Vasorelaxant activity correlated with the relative lipid solubility of bile acids with lipophilic bile acids exhibiting the greatest vasorelaxant activity with modest to no vasorelaxant activity exhibited by hydrophilic bile acids. We also investigated whether bile acid-induced vasorelaxation is mediated by antagonism of a prototypal contractile receptor, the alpha(1)-adrenoceptor, by stimulation of a bile acid surface membrane receptor, by the release of endothelium-derived relaxant factors, by promoting the generation of reactive oxygen species and increasing the extent of lipid peroxidation, or by modifying membrane fluidity. Lipophilic bile acids induce vasorelaxation possibly by antagonizing alpha(1)-adrenoceptors, a phenomenon that manifests itself as a lowering of the affinity of vascular alpha(1)-adrenoceptors. Bile acid-induced vasorelaxation was not dependent upon stimulation of a bile acid surface membrane receptor or the release of endothelium-derived relaxant factors. Lipophilic bile acids can also increase the extent of lipid peroxidation with a subtle reduction in the fluidity of rat vascular smooth muscle membranes not associated with loss of membrane cholesterol or phospholipid. We have concluded that lipophilic bile acids are non-selective vasorelaxants whose mechanism of action is a multifaceted process involving antagonism of contractile surface membrane receptors possibly effected by an increased extent of lipid peroxidation and/or membrane fluidity but occurs independent of the release of endothelial-derived relaxant factors or stimulation of a surface membrane bile acid binding site.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".