Myocardial Ischemic Preconditioning in Rodents Is Dependent on Poly (ADP-Ribose) Synthetase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Activation of the nuclear enzyme poly (ADP-ribose) synthetase (PARS) in response to oxidant-mediated DNA injury has been shown to play an important role in the pathogenesis of reperfusion injury. Here we investigated the role of PARS in myocardial ischemic preconditioning (IPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mice with or without genetic disruption of PARS and rats in the absence or presence of the PARS inhibitor 3-aminobenzamide underwent coronary occlusion and reperfusion with or without IPC. RESULTS: Both poly(ADP-ribose) synthetase (PARS) deficiency and ischemic preconditioning (IPC) induced protection from reperfusion injury, attenuated inflammatory mediator production, and reduced neutrophil infiltration when compared to the response in wild-type mice. Surprisingly, the protective effect of IPC not only disappeared in PARS-/- mice, but the degree of myocardial injury and inflammatory response was similar to the one seen in wild-type animals. Similarly, in the rat model of IPC, 3-aminobenzamide pretreatment blocked the beneficial effect of IPC. Myocardial NAD+ levels were maintained in the PARS-deficient mice during reperfusion, while depleted in the wild-type mice. The protection against reperfusion injury by IPC was also associated with partially preserved myocardial NAD+ levels, indicating that PARS activation is attenuated by IPC. This conclusion was further strengthened by poly(ADP-ribose) immunohistochemical measurements, demonstrating that IPC markedly inhibits PARS activation during reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The mode of IPC's action is related, at least in part, to an inhibition of PARS. This process may occur either by self-auto-ribosylation of PARS during IPC, and/or via the release of endogenous purines during IPC that inhibit PARS activation during reperfusion.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".