Effect of losartan on angiotensin II-mediated endothelin and prostanoid excretion in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Angiotensin II (Ang II) stimulates renal prostanoid and vascular endothelin-1 (ET-1) release. Most known Ang II effects are mediated by AT1 receptors. Our aim was to determine whether AT1 receptor activation mediates Ang II-evoked renal prostanoid and ET-1 release. Eleven healthy men were randomized in a crossover, double-blind fashion to receive 100 mg/day of losartan or matching placebo, for 8 days. Blood and urine were sampled before and after a 2-h infusion of Ang II at a rate previously determined to increase mean arterial pressure (MAP) by 25 to 30 mm Hg in each subject. After a 14-day washout, subjects received the alternate treatment. Pretreatment with losartan had little effect on baseline MAP, but increased plasma renin activity, and virtually eliminated the pressor response to Ang II infusion. Angiotensin II significantly increased prostanoid excretion after placebo; the prostanoid response to Ang II was even greater after losartan. Plasma ET-1 was not altered by Ang II infusion, with or without losartan. In contrast, urine ET-1 excretion rate decreased to 40% of baseline after Ang II but not after losartan pretreatment; losartan alone had no effect. We conclude that Ang II decreases renal ET-1 synthesis and release through the AT1 receptor. In contrast, Angiotensin II-mediated renal prostanoid synthesis does not require activation of AT1 receptors. These findings indicate that AT1 receptor antagonists could provide renal protection through indirect mechanisms.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".