Effects of dopamine in isolated rat colon strips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present work is to investigate the effects of dopamine on isolated rat colon strips, and whether dopamine receptors are involved in these effects. Experiments on spontaneous motility and under potassium contraction were performed with dopamine and isoprenaline, both in the absence and presence of antagonists (distal colon strips, isotonic recording, Tyrode solution, 31 degrees C, 1 g of resting tension). At higher concentration (10(-4) mol/L), dopamine abolished spontaneous motility of the rat colon and this effect was not modified by antagonists. In isolated rat colon strips that were depolarized with potassium, dopamine produced concentration-dependent relaxation, without significant differences in reserpinized rats. Preincubation with sulpiride or Sch 23390, dopamine antagonists, did not modify the effects of dopamine. Propranolol shifted the concentration-response curve to the right, though in a noncompetitive manner. Prazosin and yohimbine (alpha-antagonists) did not modify the response to dopamine. Isoprenaline produced a concentration-dependent relaxant response to the KCl-induced contraction antagonized by propranolol, but not by prazosin, in a noncompetitive manner. In conclusion, dopamine exhibits a relaxant effect on the isolated rat colon, which is not mediated by specific dopamine receptors or alpha-adrenoceptors but it may be mediated by atypical beta-adrenoceptors.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".