MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982247263 · doi:10.1159/000125914

Interaction of Carp Growth Hormone-Releasing Factor and Somatostatin on in vitro Release of Growth Hormone in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

2008· article· en· W1982247263 on OpenAlexaff
Dasan Luo, Brian A. McKeown

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpInternal medicineEndocrinologySomatostatinRainbow troutAntagonismTroutBiologyHormoneAnterior pituitaryPituitary glandChemistryReceptorFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Possible antagonism between somatostatin (SS) and carp growth hormone-releasing factor (GRF) on growth hormone (GH) secretion was examined by radioimmunoassay in a dispersed rainbow trout pituitary cell culture system. SS (3 nM) significantly antagonized carp GRF(1-29; 1 nM, 10 nM)-induced GH secretion. The slope of the dose-response curve for carp GRF(1-29) with SS was statistically different from that of carp GRF(1-29) alone (p less than 0.05) suggesting a noncompetitive antagonism of SS to carp GRF. The carp GRF(1-29) was also indicated to be a noncompetitive antagonist to SS (p = 0.056). Carp GRF(1-29; 100 nM) was unable to restore the inhibitory effect of SS on GH release after pre-exposure of SS (30 nM) to the pituitary cells. We conclude that SS antagonizes carp GRF on GH release at the pituitary level in rainbow trout and this antagonism is noncompetitive. SS has a postantagonism to carp GRF which may implicate some important physiological adaptations in teleosts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207