Localization of IP in rabbit kidney and functional role of the PGI<sub>2</sub>/IP system in cortical collecting duct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To clarify the role of the PGI(2)/PGI(2) receptor (IP) system in rabbit cortical collecting duct (RCCD), we characterized the expression of IP receptors in the rabbit kidney. We show by Northern and Western blotting that IP mRNA and protein was detectable in all three regions of the kidney. To determine how PGI(2) signals, we compared the effects of different PGI(2) analogs [iloprost (ILP), carba-prostacyclin (c-PGI(2)), and cicaprost (CCP)] in the isolated perfused RCCD. PGI(2) analogs did not increase water flow (L(p)). Although PGI(2) analogs did not reduce an established L(p) response to 8-chlorophenylthio-cAMP, they equipotently inhibited AVP-stimulated L(p) by 45%. The inhibitory effect of ILP and c-PGI(2) on AVP-stimulated L(p) is partially reversed by the protein kinase C inhibitor staurosporine and abolished by pertussis toxin; no effect was obtained with CCP. In fura 2-loaded RCCD, CCP did not alter cytosolic Ca(2+) concentration ([Ca(2+)](i)), but, in the presence of CCP, individual infusion of ILP and PGE(2) increased [Ca(2+)](i), suggesting that CCP did not cause desensitization to either ILP or PGE(2). We concluded that ILP and c-PGI(2) activate PKC and the liberation of [Ca(2+)](i) but not CCP. This suggested an important role for phosphatidylinositol hydrolysis in mediating ILP and c-PGI(2) effects but not CCP in RCCD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".