MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026858501 · doi:10.1172/jci8858

Targeting the urokinase plasminogen activator receptor enhances gene transfer to human airway epithelia

2000· article· en· W2026858501 on OpenAlexaff
Paola T. Drapkin, Catherine R. O’Riordan, Su Yi, John A. Chiorini, Jonathan Cardella, Joseph Zabner, Michael J. Welsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteRoy J. Carver Charitable TrustCystic Fibrosis FoundationHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsUrokinase receptorUrokinaseReceptorEndocytosisCell biologyPlasminogen activatorBiologyActivator (genetics)PlasminGenetic enhancementMolecular biologyCancer researchChemistryGeneBiochemistryEndocrinologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing gene therapy for cystic fibrosis has been hindered by limited binding and endocytosis of vectors by human airway epithelia. Here we show that the apical membrane of airway epithelia express the urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR). Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA), or a 7-residue peptide derived from this protein (u7-peptide), bound the receptor and stimulated apical endocytosis. Both ligands enhanced gene transfer by nonspecifically bound adenovirus and adeno-associated virus vectors and by a modified adenovirus vector that had been coupled to the u7-peptide. These data provide the first evidence that targeting an apical receptor can circumvent the two most important barriers to gene transfer in airway epithelia. Thus, the uPA/uPAR system may offer significant advantages for delivering genes and other pharmaceuticals to airway epithelia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations67
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207