MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495442506 · doi:10.3748/wjg.v9.i4.784

Effect of transforming growth factor beta and bone morphogenetic proteins on rat hepatic stellate cell proliferation and trans-differentiation

2003· article· en· W1495442506 on OpenAlexaff
Hong Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastroenterology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver physiology and pathology
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatic stellate cellCell growthTransforming growth factor betaBone morphogenetic proteinCell biologyBiologyCellular differentiationInternal medicineTransforming growth factorEndocrinologyMolecular biologyChemistryMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To explore different roles of TGF-beta (transforming growth factor beta) and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) in hepatic stellate cell proliferation and trans-differentiation. METHODS: Hepatic stellate cells were isolated from male Sprague-Dawley rats. Sub-cultured hepatic stellate cells were employed for cell proliferation assay with WST-1 reagent and Western blot analysis with antibody against smooth muscle alpha actin (SMA). RESULTS: The results indicated that TGF-beta1 significantly inhibited cell proliferation at concentration as low as 0.1 ng/ml, but both BMP-2 and BMP-4 did not affect cell proliferation at concentration as high as 10 ng/ml. The effect on hepatic stellate cell trans-differentiation was similar between TGF-beta1 and BMPs. However, BMPs was more potent at trans-differentiation of hepatic stellate cells than TGF-beta1. In addition, we observed that TGF-beta1 transient reduced the abundance of SMA in hepatic stellate cells. CONCLUSION: TGF-beta may be more important in regulation of hepatic stellate cell proliferation while BMPs may be the major cytokines regulating hepatic stellate cell trans-differentiation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of GastroenterologySame topicLiver physiology and pathologyFrench-language works237,207