Epithelial distribution of neural receptors in the guinea pig small intestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural and paracrine agents, such as dopamine, epinephrine, and histamine, affect intestinal epithelial function, but it is unclear if these agents act on receptors directly at the enterocyte level. The cellular localization and villus-crypt distribution of adrenergic, dopamine, and histamine receptors within the intestinal epithelium is obscure and needs to be identified. Single cell populations of villus or crypt epithelial cells were isolated from the jejunum of adult guinea pigs. Enterocytes were separated from intraepithelial lymphocytes by flow cytometry and specific binding was determined using fluorescent probes. Alpha1-adrenergic receptors were located on villus and crypt intraepithelial lymphocytes and enterocytes. Beta-adrenergic receptors were found on villus and crypt enterocytes. Dopamine receptors were found on all cell types examined, whereas histamine receptors were not detected (<10% for each cell population). These studies demonstrated that (1) receptors for epinephrine and dopamine exist on epithelial cells of the guinea pig jejunum, (2) beta-adrenergic receptors are found primarily on villus and crypt enterocytes and (3) intraepithelial lymphocytes contain alpha1-adrenergic, but have few beta-adrenergic, receptors. The presence of neural receptors suggests that these agents are acting, at least in part, at the enterocyte or intraepithelial lymphocyte levels to modulate intestinal and immune function.
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) | 0.002 | 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".