MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014912287 · doi:10.1159/000139359

Neurokinin Receptors in the Guinea Pig Ileum

2008· article· en· W2014912287 on OpenAlexaff
X.K. Nguyen‐Le, Quang T. Nguyen, Fernand Gobeil, D. Jukic, L. Chr eacute tien, D. Regoli

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurokinin ANeurokinin BReceptorSubstance PTachykinin receptorAgonistInternal medicineEndocrinologyHistamineMyenteric plexusReceptor antagonistChemistryAtropineBiologyAntagonistNeuropeptideMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experiments were performed in the longitudinal muscle strip of the guinea pig ileum to characterize the receptors involved in the contractile response of this preparation to neurokinins. Antagonists for the NK-1 (CP 96345, CP 99994) and NK-2 (SR 48968) receptors, atropine for NK-3 receptors, as well as diphenhydramine (histamine H1 receptor antagonist) and indometacin (cyclooxygenase inhibitor) were used to determine the relative contribution of neurokinin receptors and some endogenous agents to the myotropic effects of substance P (SP) and neurokinin receptor selective agonists. The present findings indicate that the three neurokinin receptor types take part in the contractile activities of SP-related peptides. NK-1 receptors, probably localized in the smooth muscle, are inhibited only by the two CP compounds and not by atropine or the other agents. NK-2 receptors contribute to the contraction by 5-10% and are blocked by SR 48968. NK-3 receptors act indirectly through the release of acetylcholine from the myenteric plexus, since activities of [MePhe7]NKB and senktide are blocked by atropine. Septide behaves as a selective NK-1 receptor agonist and does not show any difference with SP, except for higher sensitivity to CP antagonists. The same is observed with Ac[Arg6,Sar9,Met(O2)11]SP(6-11), another NK-1-selective fragment. Discrepancies between antagonist pA2 values obtained against undeca- and hexapeptide agonists are interpreted as due to a stronger binding affinity of undecapeptide agonists as compared with the hexapeptides. Results of binding assays confirm data from the literature by showing that undecapeptide agonists have higher affinities than hexapeptides, particularly septide,, and such discrepancies (with the biological assays) can also be explained by the reduction or absence of the cationic charge at the N terminal of septide.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacologySame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207