Inhibiting pyruvate kinase muscle isoform 2 regresses group 2 pulmonary hypertension induced by supra‐coronary aortic banding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Group 2 pulmonary hypertension (PH) has no approved PH-targeted therapy. Metabolic remodelling, specifically a biventricular increase in pyruvate kinase muscle (PKM) isozyme 2 to 1 ratio, occurs in rats with group 2 PH induced by supra-coronary aortic banding (SAB). We hypothesize that increased PKM2/PKM1 is maladaptive and inhibiting PKM2 would improve right ventricular (RV) function. METHODS: Male, Sprague-Dawley SAB rats were confirmed to have PH by echocardiography and then randomized to treatment with a PKM2 inhibitor (intraperitoneal shikonin, 2 mg/kg/day) versus 5% DMSO (n = 5/group) or small interfering RNA-targeting PKM2 (siPKM2) versus siRNA controls (n = 7/group) by airway nebulization. RESULTS: Shikonin-treated SAB rats had milder PH (PAAT 32.1 ± 1.3 vs 22.1 ± 1.2 ms, P = .0009) and lower RV systolic pressure (RVSP) (31.5 ± 0.9 vs 55.7 ± 1.9 mm Hg, P < .0001) versus DMSO-SAB rats. siPKM2 nebulization reduced PKM2 expression in the RV, increased PAAT (31.7 ± 0.7 vs 28.0 ± 1.3 ms, P = .025), lowered RVSP (30.6 ± 2.6 vs 42.0 ± 4.0 mm Hg, P = .032) and reduced diastolic RVFW thickness (0.69 ± 0.04 vs 0.85 ± 0.06 mm, P = .046). Both shikonin and siPKM2 regressed PH-induced medial hypertrophy of small pulmonary arteries. CONCLUSION: Increases in PKM2/PKM1 in the RV contribute to RV dysfunction in group 2 PH. Chemical or molecular inhibition of PKM2 restores the normal PKM2/PKM1 ratio, reduces PH, RVSP and RVH and regresses adverse PA remodelling. PKM2 merits consideration as a therapeutic cardiac target for group 2 PH.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".