Sex and strain differences in adult mouse cardiac repolarization: importance of androgens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gender differences in mouse cardiac repolarization have been reported to be due to the stimulatory action of androgens on the ultrarapid delayed rectifier K(+) current (I(Kur)) and its underlying Kv1.5 channel. To confirm the regulation of ventricular repolarization by androgens, the present study compared two strains of mice (CD-1 and C57BL/6) that present different androgen levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Measurement of testosterone levels in different strains of mice (CD-1, C57BL/6, C3H and FVB) revealed that male C57BL/6 mice had very low levels of testosterone, whereas males of the other strains displayed normal testosterone levels. Furthermore, whole-cell voltage clamp recordings in isolated ventricular myocytes showed that the current density of I(Kur) in male C57BL/6 mice was similar to that in female mice but smaller with respect to male CD-1 mice. Androgen replacement in male C57BL/6 mice as well as in castrated male CD-1 mice shortened ventricular repolarization, increased I(Kur) current density, and increased expression of Kv1.5 channels. CONCLUSION: Strain and gender differences observed in mouse cardiac repolarization can be explained by different androgen levels. As a consequence, androgens are major regulatory factors in cardiac repolarization and special attention should be paid to the hormonal status of the animal when studying hormonal regulation of cardiac repolarization.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".