Electrophysiological Properties of Rat Mesenteric Lymphatic Vessels and their Regulation by Stretch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In mammals, lymph is propelled centrally primarily via the phasic contractions of collecting lymphatic vessels, known as lymphatic pumping. Electrophysiological studies conducted in guinea pig and sheep mesenteric lymphatic vessels indicate that contractions are initiated in the lymphatic muscle by nifedipine-sensitive action potentials (APs). Lymphatic pumping is highly sensitive to luminal fluid loading and the mechanical properties of this stretch-induced pumping have been consistently studied, in particular in rat mesenteric lymphatic vessels. However, membrane potential (Vm) and the electrophysiological events underlying stretch-induced lymphatic pumping have not been investigated in the rat. The aim of this study was thus to examine the properties of rat mesenteric lymphatic muscle Vm under resting conditions and to assess changes in Vm caused by distension. METHODS AND RESULTS: Lymphatic muscle Vm was measured with sharp intracellular microelectrodes either in unstretched conditions or under isometric tension provided by a wire-myograph. In unstretched vessels, Vm was -48 ± 2 mV (n=30). APs (amplitude ∼25 mV) were observed at a frequency of ∼8/min and were abolished by nifedipine. Under isometric tension, Vm was less polarized (-36 ± 1 mV, n=23), even at minimum tension. Increase in tension led to increase in contraction strength and contraction/AP frequency, while Vm was slightly hyperpolarized and AP amplitude not markedly altered. CONCLUSIONS: In our experimental conditions, rat lymphatic muscle has electrophysiological characteristics similar to that in other species. It responds to an increase in isometric tension with an increase in AP frequency, but resting Vm is not significantly affected.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".