Skeletal muscle nitric oxide concentrations in normotensive and spontaneously hypertensive rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that there is a differential distribution of the nitric oxide synthases (NOS; neuronal, eNOS; inducible, iNOS and endothelial, eNOS) in skeletal muscle which differ in their quantitative expression depending on tissue and species. In humans, nNOS expression has been found to be similar in both type I and type II skeletal muscle fibers, while in rodents an increase in the expression of nNOS in type II fibers as compared to type I fibers has been observed. It has also been suggested that hypertension may alter the expression of nNOS in skeletal muscle, however, very few direct measurements of nNOS expression or nitric oxide (NO) concentrations have been made under these conditions. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine NO concentrations in the white gastrocnemius (WG) and soleus (S) muscle of WKY (control) and spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). Basal WG NO levels were consistently lower, but not different (P>0.05) between WKY and SHR rats, While S NO levels were also similar between groups. However, the WKY and SHR groups showed a 27±7% and 11±3% higher (P<0.05) NO concentration in the WG as compared the S muscle, respectively. These data demonstrate that hypertension does not result in any significant changes in the basal levels of NO in rat WG and S muscle and may be explained by the fact these measurements were made on resting skeletal muscle. However, this study clearly showed a greater NO concentration in type II versus type I muscle fibers. Supported by NSERC
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".