Nitric Oxide Synthase Isoenzyme Expression and Activity in Peripheral Lung Tissue of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Nitric oxide (NO) is increased in the lung periphery of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, expression of the NO synthase(s) responsible for elevated NO has not been identified in the peripheral lung tissue of patients with COPD of varying severity. METHODS: Protein and mRNA expression of nitric oxide synthase type I (neuronal NOS [nNOS]), type II (inducible NOS [iNOS]), and type III (endothelial NOS [eNOS]) were quantified by Western blotting and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, respectively, in specimens of surgically resected lung tissue from nonsmoker control subjects, patients with COPD of varying severity, and smokers without COPD, and in a lung epithelial cell line (A549). The effects of nitrative/oxidative stress on NOS expression and activity were also evaluated in vitro in A549 cells. nNOS nitration was quantified by immunoprecipitation and dimerization of nNOS was detected by low-temperature SDS-PAGE/Western blot in the presence of the peroxynitrite generator, 3-morpholinosydnonimine-N-ethylcarbamide (SIN1), in vitro and in vivo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung tissue from patients with severe and very severe COPD had graded increases in nNOS (mRNA and protein) compared with nonsmokers and normal smokers. Hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)) and SIN1 as well as the cytokine mixture (IFN-gamma, IL-1beta, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha) increased mRNA expression and activity of nNOS in A549 cells in a concentration-dependent manner compared with nontreated cells. Tyrosine nitration resulted in an increase in nNOS activity in vitro, but did not affect its dimerization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COPD have a significant increase in nNOS expression and activity that reflects the severity of the disease and may be secondary to oxidative stress.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".