The low oxygen-carrying capacity of Krebs buffer causes a doubling in ventricular wall thickness in the isolated heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The buffer-perfused Langendorff heart is significantly vasodilated compared with the in vivo heart. In this study, we employed ultrasound to determine if this vasodilation translated into changes in left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT), and if this effect persisted when these hearts were switched to the "working" mode. To investigate the effects of perfusion pressure, vascular tone, and oxygen availability on cardiac dimensions, we perfused hearts (from male Wistar rats) in the Langendorff mode at 80, 60, and 40 cm H2O pressure, and infused further groups of hearts with either the vasoconstrictor endothelin-1 (ET-1) or the blood substitute FC-43. Buffer perfusion induced a doubling in diastolic LVWT compared with the same hearts in vivo (5.4 +/- 0.2 mm vs. 2.6 +/- 0.2 mm, p < 0.05) that was not reversed by switching hearts to "working" mode. Perfusion pressures of 60 and 40 cm H2O resulted in an increase in diastolic LVWT. ET-1 infusion caused a dose-dependent decrease in diastolic LVWT (6.6 +/- 0.4 to 4.8 +/- 0.4 mm at a concentration of 10(-9) mol/L, p < 0.05), with a concurrent decrease in coronary flow. FC-43 decreased diastolic LVWT from 6.7 +/- 0.5 to 3.8 +/- 0.7 mm (p < 0.05), with coronary flow falling from 16.1 +/- 0.4 to 8.1 +/- 0.4 mL/min (p < 0.05). We conclude that the increased diastolic LVWT observed in buffer-perfused hearts is due to vasodilation induced by the low oxygen-carrying capacity of buffer compared with blood in vivo, and that the inotropic effect of ET-1 in the Langendorff heart may be the result of a reversal of this wall thickening. The implications of these findings are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".