No contractile effect for 5‐HT<sub>1D</sub> and 5‐HT<sub>1F</sub> receptor agonists in human and bovine cerebral arteries: similarity with human coronary artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Using subtype-selective 5-HT1 receptor agonists and/or the 5-HT1 receptor antagonist GR127935, we characterized in vitro the 5-HT receptor that mediates the contraction of human and bovine cerebral arteries. Further, we investigated which sumatriptan-sensitive receptors are present in human coronary artery by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). 2. Agonists with affinity at the 5-HT1B receptor, such as sumatriptan, alniditan and/or IS-159, elicited dose-dependent contraction in both human and bovine cerebral arteries. They behaved as full agonists at the sumatriptan-sensitive 5-HT1 receptors in both species. In contrast, PNU-109291 and LY344864, selective agonists at 5-HT1D and 5-HT1F receptors, respectively, were devoid of any significant vasocontractile activity in cerebral arteries, or did not affect the sumatriptan-induced vasocontraction. The rank order of agonist potency was similar in both species and could be summarized as 5-HT = alniditan > sumatriptan = IS-159 >>> PNU-109291 = LY344864. 3. In bovine cerebral arteries, the 5-HT1 receptor antagonist GR127935 dose-dependently inhibited the vasoconstrictions elicited by both 5-HT and sumatriptan, with respective pA2 values of 8.0 and 8.6. 4. RT-PCR studies in human coronary arteries showed a strong signal for the 5-HT1B receptor while message for the 5-HT1F receptor was weak and less frequently detected. Expression of 5-HT1D receptor mRNA was not detected in any sample. 5. The present results demonstrate that the triptan-induced contraction in brain vessels is mediated exclusively by the 5-HT1B receptor, which is also present in a majority of human coronary arteries. These results suggest that selective 5-HT1D and 5-HT1F receptor agonists might represent new antimigraine drugs devoid of cerebro- and cardiovascular effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".