ArticleMolecular and cellular biochemistry1999
Peroxide sensitivity of endothelin responses in coronary artery smooth muscle: ET(A) vs. ET(B) pathways.
Article in Molecular and cellular biochemistry, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sodium-calcium exchange mediated contraction in left anterior descending and left ventricular branch arteries.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2009Article
- Endothelium and smooth muscle of pig coronary artery: differences in metabolism.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endothelins (ETs) contract de-endothelialized rings from left descending coronary artery via ET(A) or ET(B) receptors. Here we test the hypothesis that the actions of EA(A) and ET(B) receptors are similar in their sensitivities to damage by hydrogen peroxide. In Ca2+-containing Krebs' solution, 100 nM of the ET(B) agonist IRL1620 produced contractions with significantly smaller force (17.6+/-1.7 mN) than 50 nM of the ET(A) + ET(B) agonist ET-1 (73.2+/-4.6 mN) (p < 0.05). In Ca2+-free solutions, the contractions due to both agents were significantly smaller (p < 0.05). Pretreating the tissues with peroxide inhibited the contractions produced by either agent. The IC50 values for peroxide were significantly higher (p < 0.05) using ET-1 (1.0+/-0.3 mM in Ca2+, 1.4+/-0.1 mM in Ca2+-free) than using IRL 1620 (0.32+/-0.08 in Ca2+, 0.25+/-0.01 mM in Ca2+-free). Pretreating microsomes isolated from the artery smooth muscle with up to 10 mM peroxide did not significantly affect 125I-ET-1 binding to ET(A) or ET(B) receptors (p > 0.05). In comparing the peroxide induced inactivation of the various processes in this artery and based on literature, we conclude that the actions of ET(A) may also involve a peroxide resistant Ca2+-independent pathway(s).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.