MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1986983774 · doi:10.1139/y01-049

Apparent B-type natriuretic peptide selectivity in the kidney due to differential processing

2001· article· en· W1986983774 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ichiro Kishimoto, F. Kent Hamra, David L. Garbers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial natriuretic peptideNeprilysinKidneyInternal medicineNPR2EndocrinologyNatriuretic peptideChemistryNPR1ReceptorPhosphoramidonBrain natriuretic peptideMedicineHeart failureBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two natriuretic peptides, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), are found principally in the heart. In preliminary experiments with mouse kidney cells or slices, we found mouse BNP1-45 much more potent than ANP1-28 in causing elevations of cGMP (>50-fold). The guanylyl cyclase-A (GC-A) receptor has been suggested to represent the primary means by which both peptides signal. In cultured cells overexpressing GC-A, BNP and ANP were almost equivalent in potency, suggesting that a receptor unique for BNP exists in the kidney. However, in mice lacking the GC-A gene, neither BNP nor ANP significantly elevated cGMP in kidney slices. Phosphoramidon, a neutral endopeptidase inhibitor, shifted the apparent potency of ANP to values equivalent to that of BNP, suggesting these kidney cell/slices rapidly degrade ANP but not BNP. Mass spectroscopic analysis confirmed that ANP is rapidly cleaved at the first cysteine of the disulfide ring, whereas BNP is particularly stable to such cleavage. Other tissues (heart, aorta) failed to significantly degrade ANP or BNP, and therefore the kidney-specific degradation of ANP provides a mechanism for preferential regulation of kidney function by BNP independent of peripheral ANP concentration.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→