Endothelin‐1‐induced ET<sub>A</sub> receptor‐mediated nociception, hyperalgesia and oedema in the mouse hind‐paw: modulation by simultaneous ET<sub>B</sub> receptor activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endothelin-1 causes ET(A) receptor-mediated enhancement of capsaicin-induced nociception in mice. We have assessed if this hyperalgesic effect of endothelin-1 is also accompanied by other pro-inflammatory effects, namely nociception and oedema, and characterized the endothelin ET receptors involved. Intraplantar (i. pl.) hind-paw injection of endothelin-1 (0.3 - 30 pmol) induced graded nociceptive responses (accumulated licking time: vehicle, 20. 5+/-3.3 s; endothelin-1 at 30 pmol, 78.1+/-9.8 s), largely confined to the first 15 min. Endothelin-1 (1 - 10 pmol) potentiated ipsilateral capsaicin-induced (0.1 microgram, i.pl.; at 30 min) nociception (vehicle, 40.2+/-2.6 s; endothelin-1 at 10 pmol, 98.4+/-5.8 s, but 30 pmol was inactive), and caused oedema (increase in paw weight 5 min after capsaicin: vehicle, 46.3+/-2.3 mg; endothelin-1 at 30 pmol, 100.3+/-6.1 mg). Selective ET(B) receptor agonists sarafotoxin S6c (up to 30 pmol) and IRL 1620 (up to 100 pmol) were inactive, whereas endothelin-3 (up to 30 pmol) induced only modest oedema. ET(A) receptor antagonists BQ-123 (1 nmol, i.pl. ) or A-127722-5 (6 micromol kg(-1), i.v.) prevented all effects of endothelin-1 (10 pmol), but the ET(B) receptor antagonist BQ-788 (1 or 10 nmol, i.pl.) was ineffective. BQ-788 (10 nmol, i.pl.) unveiled hyperalgesic effects of 30 pmol endothelin-1 and endothelin-3. Sarafotoxin S6c (30 pmol, i.pl.) did not modify endothelin-1-induced (10 pmol) nociception or oedema, but abolished hyperalgesia. Thus, endothelin-1 triggers ET(A) receptor-mediated nociception, hyperalgesia and oedema in the mouse hind-paw. Simultaneous activation of ET(B) receptors by endothelin-1 or selective agonists can limit the hyperalgesic, but not the nociceptive or oedematogenic, effects of the peptide.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".