Alterations in intestinal morphology, histology and permeability with exogenous glucagon‐like peptide 2 and epidermal growth factor treatment promote intestinal adaptation in neonatal intestinal failure (137.2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The peptide factor, glucagon‐like peptide 2 (GLP‐2), augments intestinal adaptation in adults but its efficacy in neonatal short bowel syndrome (nSBS) is not established. GLP‐2 augments the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor pathway, suggesting an interactive role in the maintenance of gut health. Objective: To study the efficacy of exogenous GLP‐2 and EGF administration, alone and in combination, on intestinal adaptation and function in a translational piglet model of nSBS. Methods: Neonatal piglets (aged 3‐5 days) received one of 4 treatments (saline (n=3), GLP‐2 (n=3), EGF (n=6) and GLP‐2/EGF (n=3) in combination) for 7 days following a 75% mid‐intestinal resection or no resection (sham control). Structural adaptation was assessed by morphology and histology measures. Jejunal permeability of mannitol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) was assessed using Ussing techniques. A sow‐fed control group (n=6) was also used for comparison. Results: There was no difference in body weight gain or intestinal length between groups. In the resection group, intestinal weight per length increased with EGF treatment compared to saline treatment. Jejunum villus height increased with EGF or GLP‐2 treatment but not in combination, compared to saline treatment (p<0.0001). Combination therapy decreased both jejunum crypt depth compared to saline treatment and ileum crypt depth compared to GLP‐2 or EGF treatment (p<0.001). GLP‐2 alone reduced jejunal permeability of mannitol (p=0.0007) and PEG (p=0.0054) compared to the sham‐saline group. EGF alone increased the permeability of these markers compared to GLP‐2 treatment. Conclusions: Altogether, these findings illustrate a role for GLP‐2 and EGF therapy in intestinal adaption and function but perhaps not in combination. The combination of therapies appears to dampen the adaptive response histologically. The alterations in permeability suggest an improvement in barrier function with GLP‐2 and a promotion in mucosal growth with EGF. Grant Funding Source : Supported by: CIHR, ASPEN
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".