<b>Evaluation of the involvement of nitric oxide and substance P in reducing baroreflex gain in the genetically hypertensive (GH) rat</b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attenuation of baroreflex gain associated with hereditary hypertension could involve abnormal signalling by nitric oxide or substance P. Baroreflex gain was measured in age-matched male genetically hypertensive (GH) and nonnotensive (N) anaesthetised rats from heart rate changes in response to i.v. phenylephrine or sodium nitroprusside. In subgroups of these animals, nitric oxide synthesis was inhibited using NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME, 30 mg x kg(-1) i.v.), substance P transmission was blocked using the antagonist SR 140333 (360 nmoles x kg(-1) i.v.) or substance P release was inhibited with resiniferatoxin (4 doses of 0.3 microg x kg(-1) i.v. at 4 min intervals). Baroreflex gain was markedly reduced in GH compared to N animals (N -0.37 +/- 0.04 beat x min(-1) x mm Hg(-1), GH -0.17 +/- 0.02 beat x min(-1) x mm Hg(-1), p < 0.0001). Inhibition of nitric oxide synthase increased baroreflex gain in each strain, but the inter-strain difference in gain persisted (post-treatment N -0.57 +/- 0.07 beat x min(-1) x mm Hg(-1), GH -0.24 +/- 0.05 beat x min(-1) x mm Hg(-1) (p < 0.001). Blockade of receptors or inhibition of substance P release did not affect gain in either strain. Nitric oxide, but not substance P, appears to play an inhibitory role in the rat arterial baroreflex. Impairment of baroreflex gain in GH rats is not secondary to altered nitric oxide signaling.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".