Changes in histological structure and nitric oxide synthase expression in aorta of rats supplemented with bee pollen or whey protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various protein-based supplements are at least periodically consumed by 30%-40% of sportspeople. The current study compares cardiovascular effects of diet supplementation with 2 different protein-rich products: bee pollen and whey protein. Thirty Wistar rats were divided into 2 groups, one subjected to daily moderate physical activity and one not. Each group consisted of 3 subgroups: control, whey-protein-supplemented, and bee-pollen-supplemented. After 8 weeks, rats were decapitated, and proximal parts of thoracic aortas were collected and embedded in paraffin blocks. Histological slides were stained according to standard hematoxylin and eosin, Masson's trichrome, and Verhoeff - Van Gieson staining. Special immunohistochemical stains against neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS), endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), and alpha smooth muscle actin were also prepared. Histological evaluation revealed noticeable changes in all supplemented groups: disturbances in elastic laminae, slight increase in collagen deposition, and significantly lowered nNOS and eNOS expression. The prevalence of small atherosclerotic plaques was the highest in non-running supplemented groups, while in running supplemented groups it resembled the prevalence in control groups. Both running groups had thinner tunica media than control. Both supplements exert visible effects on aortic structure, but the difference between them is far less evident. In some aspects, however, the bee pollen seems to be even slightly more harmful, which may be related to various possible contaminants like mycotoxins or pesticides.
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) | 0.000 | 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".