Feline lower esophageal sphincter sling and circular muscles have different functional inhibitory neuronal responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lower esophageal sphincter (LES) has a circular muscle component exhibiting spontaneous tone that is relaxed by nitric oxide (NO) and a low-tone sling muscle that contracts vigorously to cholinergic stimulation but with little or no evidence of NO responsiveness. This study dissected the responses of the sling muscle to nitrergic innervation in relationship to its cholinergic innervation and circular muscle responses. Motor responses were induced by electrical field stimulation (EFS; 1-30 Hz) of muscle strips from sling and circular regions of the feline LES in the presence of cholinergic receptor inhibition (atropine) or NO synthase inhibition [NG-nitro-L-arginine (L-NNA)+/-atropine]. This study showed the following. First, sling muscle developed less intrinsic resting tone compared with circular muscle. Second, with EFS, sling muscle contracted (most at <or=10 Hz), whereas circular muscle relaxed >50% by 5 Hz. Third, on neural blockade with atropine or L-NNA+/-atropine, 1) sling muscle, although predominantly influenced by excitatory cholinergic stimulation, had a small neural NO-mediated inhibition, with no significant non-NO-mediated inhibition and 2) circular muscle, although little affected by cholinergic influence, underwent relaxation predominantly by neural release of NO and some non-NO inhibitory influence (at higher EFS frequency). Fourth, the sling, precontracted with bethanecol, could relax with NO and some non-NO inhibition. Finally, the tension range of both muscles is similar. In conclusion, sling muscle has limited NO-mediated inhibition to potentially augment or replace sling relaxation effected by switching off its cholinergic excitation. Differences within the LES sling and circular muscles could provide new directions for therapy of LES disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".