MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523736847 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.21.5.a528-d

Anti‐angiogenic properties of opticin

2007· article· en· W1523736847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Sutton, Magali M. Le Goff, David C. West, Mark Slevin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicElectron Spin Resonance Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiogenesisCell biologyExtracellular matrixMatrigelPhosphorylationChorioallantoic membraneMAPK/ERK pathwayNeovascularizationChemistryFibroblast growth factorBiologyCancer researchBiochemistryReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angiogenesis plays a key role in ocular development and disease. Opticin is an extracellular matrix small leucine‐rich repeat glycoprotein which was first isolated from vitreous humour of the eye. As it is highly expressed in the eye throughout life, we hypothesised that it may contribute towards the angiogenic process. The effect of opticin on FGF‐2‐stimulated angiogenesis was determined using assays for monolayer wound recovery and boyden chamber (migration), tube‐like structure formation and invasion in matrigel or collagen gel, and examination of protein phosphorylation using Kinexus Western arrays (Bioinformatics, Canada). The presence of opticin decreased cell migration (31%, p< 0.005), tube like structure formation (37%, p<0.001) and cell invasion (45%, p<0.001). Opticin also significantly decreased the development of blood vessel formation in the chick chorioallantoic membrane assay. Opticin decreased FGF‐2‐induced phosphorylation of MEK1/2 (MAPK kinase), JNK and p38 (MAPK). A decrease of MAPKs phosphorylation is known to play crucial roles in cell migration and tubular morphogenesis. Therefore, opticin maybe an inhibitor of vascular ingression into the vitreous humour.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicElectron Spin Resonance StudiesFrench-language works237,207