Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) is a lysophospholipid mediator with diverse biological function mediated by S1P1–5 receptors. Whereas S1P was shown to protect the heart against ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, other studies highlighted its vasoconstrictor effects. We aimed to separate the beneficial and potentially deleterious cardiac effects of S1P during I/R and identify the signaling pathways involved. Wild type (WT), S1P2-KO and S1P3-KO Langendorff-perfused murine hearts were exposed to intravascular S1P, I/R, or both. S1P induced a 45% decrease of coronary flow (CF) in WT-hearts. The presence of S1P-chaperon albumin did not modify this effect. CF reduction diminished in S1P3-KO but not in S1P2-KO hearts, indicating that in our model S1P3 mediates coronary vasoconstriction. In I/R experiments, S1P3 deficiency had no influence on postischemic CF but diminished functional recovery and increased infarct size, indicating a cardioprotective effect of S1P3. Preischemic S1P exposure resulted in a substantial reduction of postischemic CF and cardiac performance and increased the infarcted area. Although S1P3 deficiency increased postischemic CF, this failed to improve cardiac performance. These results indicate a dual role of S1P3 involving a direct protective action on the myocardium and a cardiosuppressive effect due to coronary vasoconstriction. In acute coronary syndrome when S1P may be released abundantly, intravascular and myocardial S1P production might have competing influences on myocardial function via activation of S1P3 receptors.
The article focuses on interpretations of madness in early nineteenth-century Hungary medical practice from a comparative perspective. By relying on the methodological approach of the anthropology of writing and the analytical considerations offered by Michel Foucault’s 1973–1974 lectures on Psychiatric Power, the article discusses the formalized and standardized practices of case history writing. It draws on sources from the teaching clinics at the universities of Pest and Edinburgh, as well as the largest mental asylums in the Habsburg Monarchy in Vienna (est. 1784) and Prague (est. 1790), and the ideal type of mental asylums at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the York Retreat (est. 1796). In doing so, an attempt is made to reconstruct both the physicians’ gaze and (to a certain extent) the patients’ view, and by examining the therapeutical regime of each hospital and its correlations with the institutional background, uncover whether madness was perceived as a pathological somatic or psychological state in the medical practice of these institutions. This is in and of itself a fundamental question if we seek to understand changing attitudes towards the mad and their curability in a period of transition from a “world without psychiatry” to a “world of psychiatry,” when specialized care was still not an option for many, especially in the East Central European region.
The aim of this article is to explore and contextualize the normative approach to suicide in the emerging discourse of forensic medicine between the last decades of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century. Viewed through the lenses of processes, such as the medicalization and pathologization of “madness” beginning in the second half of the eighteenth century, which provided one of the most characteristic contexts of the discourse on suicide, the article examines how Hungarian authors and/or translators of textbooks, dissertations, and medical treatises aimed at partially challenging earlier views and methods of handling the problem of suicide. By focusing on three main themes, namely the increasingly valorized pathological knowledge used in judicial procedures, the sociocultural and communal contexts, and the semantic dimension of the discourse, the article also points out the contradictory nature of the discourse that partially contributed to the medicalization and decriminalization of suicide, but at the same time also perpetuated some of the most persistent prejudices and the ambivalence surrounding the act of intentionally taking one’s own life.
A 18. század második felében – az antropológiai szemlélet térhódításával – fokozódó érdeklődés mutatkozott az embertudományok, és különösen a pszichológia, vagy korabeli kifejezéssel lélektudomány iránt. A lélek helyének, szerepének és az emberi testre gyakorolt befolyásának kérdése immáron szerves részét képezte az orvosi, filozófiai és antropológiai diskurzusoknak, az „elmebetegek” ellátásának problémája pedig korábban nem tapasztalt kihívást jelentett a hatalom és az orvostudomány képviselői számára. Az orvosi oktatásban azonban – megfelelő intézményi háttér hiányában, amely „gyakorlóterepet” jelenthetett volna az orvostanhallgatók számára – a lélek és elme betegségeinek szentelt önálló kurzusok viszonylag későn jelentek meg. Az első pszichiátriakurzusok tervezeteit csupán az 1840-es években nyújtották be az Udvari Tanulmányügyi Bizottsághoz a Habsburg Birodalom két legnagyobb, a 18. század végén alapított tébolydáinak (Bécs, 1784; Prága, 1790) főorvosai. Az intézményi háttér hiányosságai ellenére azonban a pszichológiai ismeretek már a 18. század végétől egyre hangsúlyosabban jelentek meg az orvosi oktatásban a fiziológa-, patológia- és államorvostani kurzusok keretein belül, amelyek összefoglaló ismereteket nyújtottak a lélek helyéről, szerepéről, a testre gyakorolt hatásáról és a lélek/elme leggyakoribb betegségeiről (melankólia, mánia, hisztéria, hipochondria), reflektálva a 19. század elejének új elméleteire és elméletalkotóira (például Pinel, Esquirol, Heinroth, Reil) is. A tanulmány a Habsburg Birodalom három orvosi fakultásának tanrendjeit és tankönyvi programját hasonlítja össze, és amellett érvel, hogy a 18–19. század fordulójától a lélektudomány – mint elsősorban elméleti diszciplína – az orvostudomány és az orvosi oktatás egyik legfontosabb „segédtudományává” vált.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.