Interstitial nitric oxide levels do not increase following L‐Arginine or ATP perfusion into the interstitium of rat hind‐limb skeletal muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been proposed that increased extracellular L‐Arginine (L‐Arg) or ATP stimulates nitric oxide synthase activity producing nitric oxide (NO). In the present study we used the microdialysis technique to alter the interstitial concentration of L‐Arg and ATP to examine whether elevations in these compounds results in nitric oxide formation in rat skeletal muscle. Male Sprague‐Dawley rats were anaesthetized and had microdialysis fibers (1 cm diffusion length) inserted into the gastrocnemius muscle of each leg. Following 20 min. of baseline collection (saline), the microdialysis probes were perfused at a rate of 5 uL/min with either 20 mM L‐Arg (20 min., n = 10) or 60 uM ATP (20 min., n = 15). Interstitial NO concentrations were 7.2±1.1 and 5.2±0.7 uM during saline perfusion and did not change (P>0.05) following L‐Arg (6.5± 0.8 uM) or ATP (5.6±0.9 uM) perfusion. These data clearly demonstrate that elevated interstitial L‐Arg as well as ATP concentrations did not alter the basal interstitial concentrations of NO. Furthermore, these data suggest that the independent manipulation of L‐Arg and ATP in the interstitial space alone does not promote NO production and release from surrounding tissues. Supported by NSERC.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".