MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Sex‐Specific Role of Endothelin‐A Receptors in the Cardiac Susceptibility to Ischemia/Reperfusion Insult in Adult Offspring Exposed to Prenatal Hypoxia

2021· article· en· W3169380580 on OpenAlexafffund
Nataliia Hula, Jennie Vu, Anita Quon, Raven Kirschenman, Floor Spaans, Ricky Ini Liu, Christy‐Lynn M. Cooke, Sandra T. Davidge

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsOffspringCardiac function curveInternal medicineEndocrinologyHypoxia (environmental)MedicineEndothelin receptorIschemiaEndothelin 1VentricleFetusReceptorPregnancyBiologyHeart failureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Fetal hypoxia, a common consequence of complicated pregnancies, leads to the development of cardiac dysfunction in adult offspring by impairing cardiac tolerance to an ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) insult. Extensive evidence demonstrates that cardiac I/R upregulates the endothelin‐1 (ET‐1) system leading to elevated levels of ET‐1 (a peptide with potent physiological and pathophysiological effects on the cardiovascular system). Active ET‐1 exerts its effects via the endothelin‐A receptors (ET A R; of which enhanced activation has been associated with impaired post‐I/R cardiac function) and endothelin‐B receptors (ET B R; which are essential for post‐I/R cardiac recovery). However, whether activation of ET A R contributes to cardiac dysfunction in adult offspring exposed to prenatal hypoxia is unknown. We hypothesize that, in adult offspring exposed to prenatal hypoxia, cardiac ET A R expression is increased, and its inhibition improves post‐I/R cardiac recovery. Methods Pregnant Sprague‐Dawley rats (n=4‐6 dams/group) were exposed to normoxia (21% O 2 ; normoxia) or hypoxia (11% O 2 ; p‐hypoxia) from gestational day 15‐21 (term=22 days). Cardiac function was assessed ex vivo in 4‐month old male and female offspring (n=1‐2 offspring/dam) by subjecting isolated hearts to I/R (25 min. of ischemia with 40 min. of reperfusion). The contribution of ET A R to cardiac dysfunction was assessed by pre‐infusion with an ET A R antagonist (ABT‐627) before I/R (ABT‐627 was recirculated during reperfusion). ET A R and ET B R levels were assessed in non‐ischemic left ventricle tissues by Western blotting. Data (mean±SEM) were compared by two‐way ANOVA (Sidak's post hoc test), or by unpaired t‐test. Results : ABT‐627 induced a dramatic reduction in cardiac recovery after I/R in prenatally hypoxic males compared to their respective controls (control: 60.5±16.3% vs ABT‐627: 4.4±2.6%, p=0.009), without effect in normoxic males. In contrast, ABT‐627 improved I/R recovery in prenatal hypoxia‐exposed females (control: 53.5±10.6% vs ABT‐627: 87±5.6%, p=0.05) with no effect in normoxic females. In males, exposure to prenatal hypoxia did not alter cardiac ET A R levels, but decreased ET B R levels compared to the normoxic group (normoxia: 100±3.2% vs p‐hypoxia: 70.6±4%, p=0.0003), without changes in females. Conclusion Prenatal hypoxia alters the cardiac ET‐1 system in a sex‐specific manner. Inhibition of ET A R in prenatally hypoxic males impaired cardiac recovery post‐I/R, potentially due to lower ET B R expression; while cardiac recovery was improved by ET A R inhibition in females. Activation of ET A R may thus be essential for cardiac tolerance to I/R in prenatally hypoxic males, while it may contribute to the development of cardiac dysfunction in females. Our data suggests that developmental influences and sex differences need to be considered during the implementation of therapeutic strategies to prevent the long‐term effects of pregnancy complications on offspring cardiac health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→