The Histamine H1 Receptor Is Not Involved in Local Control of Mammary Blood Flow in Dairy Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low concentrations of the essential amino acid histidine in circulation have been shown to increase mammary blood flow and it has been suggested that this effect is mediated by histamine. The hypotheses tested in this experiment were that interstitial histamine concentrations in the mammary gland are related to arterial His concentrations and that mammary blood flow is reduced by extracellular histamine via H(1) receptors. The hypotheses were tested by infusing saline or chlorpheniramine, a blocker of the H(1) histamine receptor, into the arterial supply of the mammary glands of lactating cows infused with 44 g/h of amino acid mixtures with or without His for 10 h. Infusates were administered in a 2 x 2 factorial arrangement within a 4 x 4 Latin square to 4 multiparous Holstein cows in mid lactation. Exclusion of His from the infusate decreased protein content in milk from the infused udder half from 3.98 to 3.77%, and increased arterial alpha-aminonitrogen concentration from 3.2 to 3.4 mM. Neither the decreased arterial His concentration nor the H(1) blocker affected plasma flow to the infused udder half. We conclude that histamine is not involved in the regulation of mammary blood flow. The H(1) blocker decreased milk production in the infused udder half from 4.6 to 3.5 kg without affecting protein, fat, and lactose percentages, suggesting an inhibition of milk ejection. Cows on chlorpheniramine ate less feed during the infusion than saline-infused cows, which resulted in lower arterial concentrations and mammary uptakes of acetate. The efficiency of plasma triacylglycerol uptake across the mammary glands was decreased by chlorpheniramine but net uptake of long-chain fatty acids was not affected. The mechanism by which an amino acid deficiency influences mammary blood flow does not involve histamine signaling through the H(1) receptor and remains unidentified.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".