Limb remote ischemia per-conditioning protects the heart against ischemia–reperfusion injury through the opioid system in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote ischemia per-conditioning (RPerC) has been demonstrated to have cardiac protection, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the mechanism underlying cardiac protection of RPerC. Adult male Sprague–Dawley rats were used in this study. Cardiac ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) was induced by 30 min of occlusion and 3 h of reperfusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. RPerC were performed by 5 min of occlusion of the right femoral artery followed by 5 min of reperfusion for three times during cardiac ischemia. The hemodynamics, left ventricular function, arrhythmia, and infarct area were measured. Protein expression levels of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), inducible NOS (iNOS), protein kinase C-ε (PKC ε ), and PKC δ in the myocardium were assayed. During I/R, systolic artery pressure and left ventricular function were decreased, infarct area was increased, and arrhythmia score was increased (P < 0.05). However, changes of the above parameters were significantly attenuated in RPerC-treated rats compared with control rats (P < 0.05). The cardiac protective effects of RPerC were prevented by naloxone or glibenclamide. Also, RPerC increased the protein expression levels of eNOS, iNOS, PKC ε , and PKC δ in the myocardium compared with control rats. These effects were blocked by naloxone, an opioid receptor antagonist, and glibenclamide, an ATP-sensitive K + channel blocker (K ATP ). In summary, this study suggests that RPerC protects the heart against I/R injury through activation of opioid receptors and the NO–PKC–K ATP channel signaling pathways.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".