MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1575444732 · doi:10.1002/jor.22742

Mechanism of mast cell adhesion to human tenocytes in vitro

2014· article· en· W1575444732 on OpenAlexafffund
Hayedeh Behzad, Shu‐Huei Tsai, Paulina Nassab, Rouhollah Mousavizadeh, Robert G. McCormack, Alex Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFibronectinCell biologyIntegrinMast cellChemistryMast (botany)In vitroFibroblastReceptorImmunologyExtracellular matrixBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mast cells and fibroblasts are two key players involved in many fibrotic and degenerative disorders. In the present study we examined the nature of binding interactions between human mast cells and tendon fibroblasts (tenocytes). In the mast cell-fibroblast co-culture model, mast cells were shown to spontaneously bind to tenocytes, in a process that was partially mediated by α5β1 integrin receptors. The same receptors on mast cells significantly mediated binding of these cells to tissue culture plates in the presence of tenocyte-conditioned media; the tenocyte-derived fibronectin in the media was shown to also play a major role in these binding activities. Upon binding to tenocytes or tissue culture plates, mast cells acquired an elongated phenotype, which was dependent on α5β1 integrin and tenocyte fibronectin. Additionally, tenocyte-derived fibronectin significantly enhanced mRNA expression of the adhesion molecule, THY1, by mast cells. Our data suggests that α5β1 integrin mediates binding of mast cells to human tenocyte and to tenocyte-derived ECM proteins, in particular fibronectin.

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)0.002
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207