MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003974486 · doi:10.4161/auto.9125

NADPH oxidases contribute to autophagy regulation

2009· article· en· W2003974486 on OpenAlexaff
Ju Huang, John H. Brumell

Bibliographic record

VenueAutophagy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutophagy in Disease and Therapy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutophagyPhagosomeNADPH oxidaseBiologyCell biologyReactive oxygen speciesPhagocytosisSignal transductionReceptorBiochemistryApoptosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are emerging as regulators of autophagy in various cellular contexts. There are many cellular sources of ROS in eukaryotic cells. In phagocytes, the critical immune cells for host defense, the Nox2 NADPH oxidase generates ROS during phagocytosis and plays a central role in microbial killing. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are important membrane microbial sensing receptors, which can activate Nox2,(1) and were recently demonstrated to signal autophagy targeting of phagosomes to promote their maturation.(2) Our recent study reveals that Nox2 activity and its generated ROS are key signals that induce TLR-activated autophagy of phagosomes. Our results provide the first evidence that ROS from the Nox2 NADPH oxidase can contribute to regulating autophagy in host defense against bacteria. The association of TLR, Nox2 and autophagy with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) suggests a significant role of this antibacterial pathway in these diseases.

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations52
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutophagySame topicAutophagy in Disease and TherapyFrench-language works237,207