MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Regulator of G‐protein signalling 4 (RGS4) KO mice show increased susceptibility to atrial fibrillation

2010· article· en· W93529316 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carlo Cifelli, Kaveesh Dissanayake, Hangjun Zhang, Jie Liu, Stanley Nattel, Peter H. Backx, Scott P. Heximer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationCarbacholInternal medicineSinoatrial nodeMuscarinic acetylcholine receptorMedicinePotassium channelCardiologyAtrial action potentialAtrial myocytesEndocrinologyElectrophysiologyHeart rateStimulationReceptorBlood pressureRepolarization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Susceptibility to atrial fibrillation (AF) depends strongly on parasympathetic activity. Since RGS4 inhibits parasympathetic signaling in the sinoatrial node, we explore whether changes in RGS4 levels altered the susceptibility of atrial fibrillation. Consistent with this possibility, RGS4 levels were decreased in atria of tachypaced dogs prior to their development of chronic AF. Moreover, in vivo ECG recordings of anaesthetized mice showed greater susceptibility to AF while optical mapping of isolated atrial preparations using a voltage‐sensitive dye revealed greatly increased susceptibility to rotor formation when rgs4 was ablated. Consistent with altered parasympathetic signaling in the myocardium of rgs4 −/− mice, acetylcholine‐sensitive potassium currents (I KACh ) evoked by carbachol application were greater in isolated atrial myocytes from rgs4 −/− mice. These I KACh changes were, as expected, associated with marked enhancements of action potential duration shortening in response to parasympathetic activation, but not to slower conduction velocities. Together, our findings establish that RGS4 protects atrial tissues from excess parasympathetic signaling that predispose to atrial fibrillation. Technical and financial assistance for this work was provided by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Grant‐in‐Aid Program grants T6799, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Canada Graduate Scholarship Program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→