Involvement of 5‐<scp>HT</scp><sub>3</sub>and 5‐<scp>HT</scp><sub>4</sub>receptors in colonic motor patterns in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colonic migrating motor complexes in the rat constitute two distinct propulsive motor patterns, pan-colonic rhythmic long distance contractions (LDCs), and rhythmic propulsive motor complexes (RPMCs) occurring primarily in the mid/distal colon. Interstitial cells of Cajal govern their rhythmicity, but their occurrence is dependent on neural programs. Our aim was to investigate the involvement of 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors in the generation and pharmacological control of the motor patterns. METHODS: Effects of 5-HT-related drugs on colonic motor patterns were analyzed through spatio-temporal maps created from video recordings of whole organ motility. KEY RESULTS: 5-HT3 antagonists abolished RPMCs and LDCs. 5-HT4 agonists inhibited LDCs; they promoted RPMCs, which was blocked by the 5-HT4 antagonist GR 125487. 5-HT and the 5-HT3 agonist m-CPBG strongly inhibited LDCs and RPMCs. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The generation of LDCs involves ongoing 5-HT release acting on 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors. The spontaneous generation of RPMCs involves ongoing 5-HT release acting on 5-HT3 but not 5-HT4 receptors. Prucalopride and mosapride promote RPMCs, an effect that is inhibited by the 5-HT4 receptor antagonist GR 125487. A 5-HT3 agonist does not promote RPMCs. Segmentation, including a pattern of sequential segmental activity not previously described, can occur without significant involvement of 5-HT3 and 5-HT4 receptors. 5-HT and a 5-HT3 agonist are strongly inhibitory indicating that 5-HT receptors are present in inhibitory pathways which are normally not involved in the generation of spontaneous or distention-induced motor patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".