ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2004
A pharmacological differentiation between postjunctional (AT1A) and prejunctional (AT1B) angiotensin II receptors in the rabbit aorta.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effects of angiotensin II and angiotensin III were compared at prejunctional and postjunctional AT(1) receptors of the rabbit thoracic aorta. Furthermore, the influence of PD123319, losartan and eprosartan on these effects was also compared. To study prejunctional effects, the tissues were preincubated with ((3)H)-noradrenaline, superfused and electrically stimulated (1 Hz, 2 ms, 50 mA, 5 min). To study postjunctional effects, non-cumulative concentration-response curves were determined. Both angiotensin II and angiotensin III were more potent prejunctionally than postjunctionally. In the case of angiotensin II, the EC(50) was 12 times lower at the prejunctional than at the postjunctional level, while that of angiotensin III was 30 times lower prejunctionally. Furthermore, whereas angiotensin II was about 33 times more potent than angiotensin III postjunctionally, it was only 12 times more potent than angiotensin III prejunctionally. Eprosartan did not differentiate between prejunctional and postjunctional effects of both angiotensins. In contrast, PD123319 and losartan did differentiate; however, whereas PD123319 concentration-dependently antagonised the facilitation of tritium release caused by angiotensin II and angiotensin III and had no influence on the contraction of the aortic rings elicited by the peptides, losartan did the opposite: it concentration-dependently antagonised the contractions caused by the peptides on the aortic rings and exerted no influence on the facilitatory effect of angiotensin II and angiotensin III. These results show that prejunctional and postjunctional receptors for angiotensin II and angiotensin III are different and underline the hypothesis that postjunctional AT(1) receptors belong to the AT(1A) subtype, while prejunctional AT(1) receptors belong to the AT(1B) subtype.
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.