Regional differences in L-type Ca<sup>2+</sup>channel expression in feline lower esophageal sphincter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In humans and cats, muscle from the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) circular region exhibits greater spontaneous tone than LES sling muscle, whereas the sling muscle is much more responsive to cholinergic stimulation. Despite physiological and pharmacological evidence for the presence of L-type Ca2+ channel current (ICa,L) activity in LES circular muscle, the identity of this channel has not been demonstrated biochemically or electrophysiologically fingerprinted. Furthermore, there is no information on the channel's presence and role in the sling region of the LES. We hypothesized that regional differences in the expression of ICa,L between LES circular and sling muscles, if present, could contribute to the functional asymmetry observed within the LES. ICa,L expression was compared between circular and sling regions of the LES by Western blot analysis. The patch-clamp technique was used to study ICa,L. Muscle strip studies assessed ICa,L contribution to contractile activity. We found both protein expression of ICa,L and ICa,L density to be greater in LES circular muscle than sling muscle. ICa,L voltage- and time-dependent activation and inactivation curves were similar in cells from both regions. ICa,L blockade with nifedipine inhibited spontaneous tone and ACh-induced contractions only in circular muscle but was able to abolish depolarization (KCl)-induced contractions in both sling and circular muscles. In contrast, La3+ inhibited tone and ACh-induced contractions in muscles from both regions. Therefore, regional myogenic differences in ICa,L expression within the LES circular and sling muscle exist and provide one explanation for the differential contribution of sling and circular muscle to LES contractility.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".