AT<sub>1</sub>and AT<sub>2</sub>receptor expression and blockade after acute ischemia-reperfusion in isolated working rat hearts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed ANG II type 1 (AT(1)) and type 2 (AT(2)) receptor (R) expression and functional recovery after ischemia-reperfusion with or without AT(1)R/AT(2)R blockade in isolated working rat hearts. Groups of six hearts were subjected to global ischemia (30 min) followed by reperfusion (30 min) and exposed to no drug and no ischemia-reperfusion (control), ischemia-reperfusion and no drug, and ischemia-reperfusion with losartan (an AT(1)R antagonist; 1 micromol/l), PD-123319 (an AT(2)R antagonist; 0.3 micromol/l), N(6)-cyclohexyladenosine (CHA, a cardioprotective adenosine A(1) receptor agonist; 0.5 micromol/l as positive control), enalaprilat (an ANG-converting enzyme inhibitor; 1 micromol/l), PD-123319 + losartan, ANG II (1 nmol/l), or ANG II + losartan. Compared with controls, ischemia-reperfusion decreased AT(2)R protein (Western immunoblots) and mRNA (Northern immunoblots, RT-PCR) and impaired functional recovery. PD-123319 increased AT(2)R protein and mRNA and improved functional recovery. Losartan increased AT(1)R mRNA (but not AT(1)R/AT(2)R protein) and impaired recovery. Other groups (except CHA) did not improve recovery. The results suggest that, in isolated working hearts, AT(2)R plays a significant role in ischemia-reperfusion and AT(2)R blockade induces increased AT(2)R protein and cardioprotection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".