Oculohypotensive effect of perindopril in acute and chronic models of glaucoma in rabbits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the effect of perindopril (1%) on intraocular pressure (IOP) and compared it with the effect of pilocarpine, a therapeutic agent used in experimentally induced acute and chronic models of glaucoma in rabbits. Acute glaucoma was induced by intravenous administration of 5% glucose. Pretreatment with topical perindopril (1%) and pilocarpine (1%) prevented acute rise in IOP induced by intravenous administration of 5% glucose. For inducing chronic ocular hypertension in rabbits, 50 units of freshly prepared alpha-chymotrypsin in 0.1 mL of sterile saline was injected in the posterior chamber of the eye. Perindopril (1%) (35 +/- 1.38 mm Hg to 22.45 +/- 1.42 mm Hg) and pilocarpine (1%) (34.4 +/- 0.81 mm Hg to 20.15 +/- 0.69 mm Hg) produced a significant fall in IOP in these rabbits; pretreatment with indomethacin (prostaglandin synthesis inhibitor) did not affect the IOP-lowering action of perindopril (1%). Perindopril (2.71 x 10(-7) mol/L) and neostigmine (1.49 x 10(-7) mol/L) inhibited true cholinesterase and pseudocholinesterase enzyme activity in blood. The cholinesterase enzyme inhibition by perindopril was comparable with that by neostigmine. In conclusion, our data suggest that perindopril reduced IOP in experimentally induced acute and chronic glaucoma in rabbits. One of the possible mechanisms of perindopril, apart from the inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme, may be inhibition of the enzyme cholinesterase.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".