Determination of prorenin/renin receptor expression on immune cells in an experimental model of preeclampsia in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) has become more complex. Renin/Prorenin receptor (RPR) is an important component of the renin‐angiotensin system. Its role during normal pregnancy and pregnancy‐induced hypertension (PIH) is not elucidated, especially in the inflammatory response involved in this pathology. The aim of this work was to determine the presence of prorenin/renin receptor (RPR) on immune cells from spleen during normal and pregnancy‐induced hypertension in rats. We used female Wistar rats (250 ± 20 g): 1) non pregnant rats, 2) pregnant rats, 3) pregnant rats whit subrenal aortic coarctation. We used flow cytometry, inmunoblot and RT‐PCR to determine receptor expression on immune cells from spleen. We found expression of (RPR) in non‐pregnant rats, normal pregnant rats, and preeclamptic rats by flow cytometry and immunoblot. Normal rats and normal pregnant rats expressed similar levels of receptor. Preeclamptic rats, however, expressed this receptor in a lower amount. PCR also showed a similar decrease in receptor expression. Based on these results, we can suggest that RPR is expressed on leukocytes and may play a role in the inflammatory response during pregnancy‐induced hypertension. Supported by SIP 20100012 and 20110124.
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".