Evidence for enhanced M3 muscarinic receptor function and sensitivity to atrial arrhythmia in the RGS2-deficient mouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia seen in general practice. Muscarinic ACh receptors (M2R, M3R) are involved in vagally induced AF. M2R and M3R activate the heterotrimeric G proteins, G(i) and G(q), respectively, by promoting GTP binding, and these in turn activate distinct K(+) channels. Signaling is terminated by GTP hydrolysis, a process accelerated by regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins. RGS2 is selective for G(q) and thus may regulate atrial M3R signaling. We hypothesized that knockout of RGS2 (RGS2(-/-)) would render the atria more susceptible to electrically induced AF. One-month-old male RGS2(-/-) and C57BL/6 wild-type (WT) mice were instrumented for intracardiac electrophysiology. Atrial effective refractory periods (AERPs) were also determined in the absence and presence of carbachol, atropine, and/or the selective M3R antagonist darifenacin. Susceptibility to electrically induced AF used burst pacing and programmed electrical stimulation with one extrastimulus. Real-time RT-PCR measured atrial and ventricular content of RGS2, RGS4, M2R, M3R, and M4R mRNA. AERP was lower in RGS2(-/-) compared with WT mice in both the high right atrium (HRA) (30 +/- 1 vs. 34 +/- 1 ms, P < 0.05) and mid right atrium (MRA) (21 +/- 1 vs. 24 +/- 1 ms, P < 0.05). Darifenacin eliminated this difference (HRA: 37 +/- 2 vs. 39 +/- 2 ms, and MRA: 30 +/- 2 vs. 30 +/- 1, P > 0.4). RGS2(-/-) were more susceptible than WT mice to atrial tachycardia/fibrillation (AT/F) induction (11/22 vs. 1/25, respectively, P < 0.05). Muscarinic receptor expression did not differ between strains, whereas M2R expression was 70-fold higher than M3R (P < 0.01). These results suggest that RGS2 is an important cholinergic regulator in the atrium and that RGS2(-/-) mice have enhanced susceptibility to AT/F via enhanced M3 muscarinic receptor activity.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".