Dose‐Dependent, Therapeutic Potential of Angiotensin‐(1–7) for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of the heptapeptide angiotensin-(1-7) (Ang-(1-7)), via its receptor Mas, oppose many of the effects of the classic angiotensin II signaling pathway, and pharmacological exploitation of this effect is currently actively pursued for a wide range of cardiovascular, neoplastic, or immunological disorders. On the basis of its vasodilatory and antiproliferative properties, Ang-(1-7) has consequentially also been proposed as a novel therapeutic strategy for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In this study, we tested the effectiveness of Ang-(1-7) and its stable, cyclic analog cAng-(1-7) over a range of doses for their therapeutic potential in experimental PAH. In the monocrotaline (MCT) rat model of PAH, Ang-(1-7) or cAng-(1-7) were injected in doses of 30, 100, 300, or 900 μg kg(-1) day(-1), and effects on pulmonary hemodynamics and vascular remodeling were assessed. Five weeks after MCT injection, right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) was significantly reduced for 3 dose groups treated with Ang-(1-7) (100, 300, and 900 μg kg(-1) day(-1)) and for all dose groups treated with cAng-(1-7), as compared to untreated controls, yet the total reduction of RVSP was <50% at best and thus markedly lower than that with a positive treatment control with ambrisentan. Medial-wall thickness in pulmonary arterioles was only slightly reduced, without reaching significance, for any of the tested Ang-(1-7) compounds and doses. The reported moderate attenuation of PAH does not confirm the previously postulated high promise of this strategy, and the therapeutic usefulness of Ang-(1-7) may be limited in PAH relative to that in other cardiovascular diseases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".