Role of Cholinergic Innervation and RGS2 in Atrial Arrhythmia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heart receives sympathetic and parasympathetic efferent innervation as well as the ability to process information internally via an intrinsic cardiac autonomic nervous system (ICANS). For over a century, the role of the parasympathetics via vagal acetylcholine release was related to controlling primarily heart rate. Although in the late 1800s shown to play a role in atrial arrhythmia, the myocardium took precedence from the mid-1950s until in the last decade a resurgence of interest in the autonomics along with signaling cascades, regulators, and ion channels. Originally ignored as being benign and thus untreated, recent emphasis has focused on atrial arrhythmia as atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia seen by the general practitioner. It is now recognized to have significant mortality and morbidity due to resultant stroke and heart failure. With the aging population, there will be an unprecedented increased burden on health care resources. Although it has been known for more than half a century that cholinergic stimulation can initiate AF, the classical concept focused on the M2 receptor and its signaling cascade including RGS4, as these had been shown to have predominant effects on nodal function (heart rate and conduction block) as well as contractility. However, recent evidence suggests that the M3 receptor may also playa role in initiation and perpetuation of AF and thus RGS2, a putative regulator of the M3 receptor, may be a target for therapeutic intervention. Mice lacking RGS2 (RGS2(-/-)), were found to have significantly altered electrophysiological atrial responses and were more susceptible to electrically induced AF. Vagally induced or programmed stimulation-induced AF could be blocked by the selective M3R antagonist, darifenacin. These results suggest a potential surgical target (ICANS) and pharmacological targets (M3R, RGS2) for the management of AF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".