α<sub>1</sub>-adrenergic stimulation increases ventricular action potential duration in the intact mouse heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of α1-adrenergic receptors (α-ARs) in the regulation of myocardial function is less well-understood than that of β-ARs. Previous reports in the mouse heart have described that α1-adrenergic stimulation shortens action potential duration in isolated cells or tissues, in contrast to prolongation of the action potential reported in most other mammalian hearts. It has since become appreciated, however, that the mouse heart exhibits marked variation in inotropic response to α1-adrenergic stimulation between ventricles and even individual cardiomyocytes. We investigated the effects of α1-adrenergic stimulation on action potential duration at 80% of repolarization in the right and left ventricles of Langendorff-perfused mouse hearts using optical mapping. In hearts under β-adrenergic blockade (propranolol), phenylephrine or noradrenaline perfusion both increased action potential duration in both ventricles. The increased action potential duration was partially reversed by subsequent perfusion with the α-adrenergic antagonist phentolamine (1 μmol L−1). These data show that α1-receptor stimulation may lead to a prolonging of action potential in the mouse heart and thereby refine our understanding of how action potential duration adjusts during sympathetic stimulation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".