Acute effects of endothelin receptor antagonists on hepatic hemodynamics of cirrhotic and noncirrhotic ratsThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the two-part special issue entitled 20 Years of Endothelin Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatic and circulating endothelin-1 (ET-1) are increased in patients with cirrhosis and in cirrhotic animals. However, the distinct roles of ET receptor subtypes ETA and ETB in cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PHT) have not been clearly elucidated. Thus, we studied the effects of selective ET-1 antagonists (ETA-ant or ETB-ant) and nonselective ET-1 antagonist (ETA/B-ant) on hepatic hemodynamics in cirrhotic rats. Liver fibrosis and PHT were induced by complete bile duct ligation (BDL) in rats. Two weeks after BDL or sham surgery, hemodynamic responses were measured during intraportal infusion of incremental doses of the following ET-ants: (i) BQ-123, (ii) BQ-788, and (iii) bosentan. After equilibration with vehicle, doses of ET-ants were infused for 30 min periods, and steady-state systemic and hepatic hemodynamics, portal venous pressure (PVP), and hepatic blood flow (HBF) were measured. BDL induced significant PHT and elevated concentrations of plasma ET-1 compared with sham. ETA-ant decreased PVP of cirrhotic rats but had no effect on sham, whereas ETB-ant increased PVP in sham but had no effect in BDL. Nonselective ETA/B-ant decreased PVP of BDL similarly to ETA-ant. Both ETA-ant and ETB-ant decreased local HBF, whereas a nonselective antagonist did not change HBF in sham; however no significant changes were observed in HBF of BDL rats with any of the antagonists. These findings suggest ETA activation contributes to PHT in cirrhotic rats, whereas ETB-mediated portal depressor effects are attenuated in cirrhotic rats compared with noncirrhotic rats.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".