Differential distribution of Kir2.1 and Kir2.3 subunits in canine atrium and ventricle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ventricular inward rectifier K(+) current (I(K1)) is substantially larger than atrial, producing functionally important action potential differences. To evaluate possible molecular mechanisms, we recorded I(K1) with patch-clamp techniques and studied Kir2.1 and Kir2.3 subunit expression. I(K1) density was >10-fold larger in the canine ventricle than atrium. Kir2.1 protein expression (Western blot) was 78% greater (P < 0.01) in the ventricle, but Kir2.3 band density was 228% greater (P < 0.01) in the atrium. Immunocytochemistry showed transverse tubular localization of Kir2.1 in 89% (17 of 19) of ventricular and 26% (5 of 19, P < 0.0001) of atrial cells. Both exhibited a weakly positive Kir2.1 signal at intercalated disks. Kir2.3 was strongly expressed at the intercalated disks in all cells and in the transverse tubular regions in 78% (14 of 18) of atrial and 22% (4 of 18, P < 0.001) of ventricular cells. Tissue immunohistochemical results qualitatively resembled isolated cell data. We conclude that the expression density and subcellular localization of Kir2.1 and Kir2.3 subunits differ in the canine atrium versus ventricle. Overall protein density differences are insufficient to explain I(K1) discrepancies, which may be related to differences in subcellular distribution.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".