Coordinated Control of Fetal Gastric Epithelial Functions by Insulin-Like Growth Factors and Their Binding Proteins<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) and their binding proteins (IGFBPs) on human gastric functions are unknown. This study was undertaken to evaluate the ability of fetal gastric mucosa to produce IGFBPs and to test the effects of IGF-I, IGF-II, and synthetic truncated IGFs that do not interact with IGFBPs on epithelial cell proliferation and glandular zymogenic function. Western blots, Far Western blots, and immunohistochemistry were performed to characterize the expression of IGFBP-1 to -6 and IGF-I receptor. The effects of growth factors on DNA synthesis and lipase and pepsin activities were determined in gastric explants maintained in serum-free organ culture. All gastric epithelial cells expressed the IGF-I receptor. IGFBP-2 to -6 were produced endogenously, and they were differentially localized along the foveolus-gland axis and modulated in culture. Exogenous IGF-I and IGF-II were able to reduce lipase activity without affecting pepsin, whereas they exerted different effects on cellular proliferation: IGF-I was stimulatory and IGF-II had no influence. Illustrating the complex regulatory effect that IGFBPs exert on IGF bioactivity, both truncated IGF-I and IGF-II stimulated DNA synthesis more than IGF-I. Moreover, the striking difference in mitogenic activity between truncated and native forms of IGF-II probably reflects the abundance of IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-6, two IGF-II carriers, in the foveolus/neck region, including the proliferative compartment. This study provides new evidence for the involvement of an intragastric IGF/IGFBP system in the fine regulation of epithelial cell division and also in the control of zymogen synthesis. Moreover, the specific influence of IGF-II as a mitogen appears to be tightly regulated by IGFBP isoforms preferentially associated with this growth factor and proliferative cells.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".