Modulatory effects of adenosine and adenine nucleotides on different heart preparations of the American lobster,<i>Homarus americanus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As shown previously, adenosine and the adenine nucleotides cause a rapid increase in heart rate (f(H)) and haemolymph velocity (v(HL)) when infused into intact American lobster (Homarus americanus). Here we compare the effects of adenosine and adenine nucleotides on different heart preparations in order to gain insight into their sites of action. In the semi-isolated (in situ) heart preparation where the heart is uncoupled from neural and hormonal influence AMP, ADP and ATP, but not adenosine increased contractile force. None of the purines altered f(H). Thus, the adenine nucleotides directly affect the myocardium and not the f(H)-setting cardiac ganglion. In cardioregulatory-denervated animals in which the cardiac ganglion only was severed from the central nervous system (CNS), purines caused a small and gradual increase in f(H), indicating that in vivo an alteration of f(H) arises indirectly through the central nervous system which in turn sends the information to the heart via the dorsal nerves. The gradual increase in f(H) of cardioregulatory-denervated animals may also result from neurohormones released into the circulatory system, although no significant changes in haemolymph concentration of dopamine, serotonin and octopamine were found during adenosine infusion. In semi-isolated (in situ) hearts adenine nucleotides also increased haemolymph flow, as a consequence of increased heart contractile force, but again adenosine had no effect. These data show that in vivo adenosine does not influence the myocardium, only the adenine nucleotides affect the myocardium directly. Obviously adenosine possesses an indirect effect, perhaps on cardio-arterial valves and arterial resistance, but other, as yet unidentified, modifying factors are also possible.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".