Differential expression of D2-like dopamine receptors in the kidney of the spontaneously hypertensive rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the expression and cellular distribution of D(2)-like dopamine receptors in the kidney of the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) and normotensive Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rat. DESIGN: Renal D(2)-like receptor protein expression and distribution has not been studied in the SHR. Since changes in D(2)-like receptor expression and/or distribution may contribute to the dysregulation of renal dopamine and D(1A) receptor function, we examined the expression of the three subtypes of D(2)-like receptors (D(2), D(3) and D(4)) in SHR and WKY rat kidneys. METHODS: Western blot analysis and confocal immunocytochemistry with specific polyclonal antipeptide antibodies directed against the receptor subtypes, were used to assess protein expression. RESULTS: There were no differences in protein expression and cellular immunolocalization of the D(2) receptor subtypes between SHR and WKY rats. Expression of the 50 kDa D(3) receptor was reduced in the cortex of the SHR; no differences in D(3) receptor levels were seen in the inner medulla of SHR and WKY rats. The D(4) receptor polypeptides were overexpressed in the cortex of SHR, while in the inner medulla no difference in expression of the D(4) receptor proteins was observed between SHR and WKY rats. Immunocytochemistry also showed increased immunostaining of D(4) receptors in tubular structures in the cortex, but diminished staining in the SHR inner medulla. CONCLUSION: The observed differences in expression and distribution of D(3) and D(4) dopamine receptors between cortex and inner medulla of the kidneys of SHR and WKY rats may contribute to the aberrant state of dopaminergic-mediated natriuresis in SHR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".