MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103065509 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0914722107

Astrocytic endfoot Ca <sup>2+</sup> and BK channels determine both arteriolar dilation and constriction

2010· article· en· W2103065509 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hélène Girouard, Adrian D. Bonev, Rachael M. Hannah, Andrea L. Meredith, Richard W. Aldrich, Mark T. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsVasoconstrictionConstrictionVasodilationExtracellularAnatomyInternal medicineNeuroscienceCardiologyEndocrinologyBiologyMedicineCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuronal activity is thought to communicate to arterioles in the brain through astrocytic calcium (Ca(2+)) signaling to cause local vasodilation. Paradoxically, this communication may cause vasoconstriction in some cases. Here, we show that, regardless of the mechanism by which astrocytic endfoot Ca(2+) was elevated, modest increases in Ca(2+) induced dilation, whereas larger increases switched dilation to constriction. Large-conductance, Ca(2+)-sensitive potassium channels in astrocytic endfeet mediated a majority of the dilation and the entire vasoconstriction, implicating local extracellular K(+) as a vasoactive signal for both dilation and constriction. These results provide evidence for a unifying mechanism that explains the nature and apparent duality of the vascular response, showing that the degree and polarity of neurovascular coupling depends on astrocytic endfoot Ca(2+) and perivascular K(+).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations298
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207