Erythropoietin increases eNOS protein in the mouse heart.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally accepted that induction of iNOS, but not eNOS, in the heart renders it less susceptible to the detrimental effects of an ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) challenge. However, there is some evidence to indicate that induction of eNOS in the heart (adenosine receptor agonist) can also provide protection against I/R-induced myocardial dysfunction and injury. We have recently shown that pretreatment of the heart with erythropoietin (EPO) can ameliorate the inflammation associated with an I/R challenge given 24 hrs later. The aim of the present study was to determine whether EPO can increase myocardial eNOS protein expression. C57BL/6 mice were treated with EPO (5,000 U/kg; intrperitoneally). Twenty four hrs later, the animals were euthanized, the hearts removed and prepared for Western blot analysis. Briefly, 5 μg of protein from heart tissue hydrolysates were resolved on 12.5% SDS-PAGE and transferred to polyvinylidiene fluoride membranes. After blocking with 5% non-fat milk, the membranes were blotted with an anti-EPO eNOS antibody. Our results indicate that EPO can induce eNOS protein expression in the myocardium. The increase in eNOS protein in the myocardium could explain the protective effects of EPO in I/R-induced myocardial dysfunction and injury. (MOP-13368; MGC-12816)
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".