MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035766699 · doi:10.1159/000267654

Inhibition of Platelet-Activating Factor-Induced Retinal Impairments by Cholera and Pertussis Toxins

2009· article· en· W2035766699 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jacques Cluzel, M. Doly, Nicolás G. Bazán, Brigitte Bonhomme, P. Braquet

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
KeywordsErgPertussis toxinCholera toxinRetinalPlatelet-activating factorElectroretinographyRetinaEndocrinologyToxinInternal medicineBiologyMechanism of actionPharmacologyChemistryImmunologyG proteinMedicineCell biologyIn vitroBiochemistrySignal transductionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platelet-activating factor (PAF) has been shown to alter the trans-retinal potential recorded from light-stimulated isolated retina. In the present study, we investigated the effect of cholera and pertussis toxins on PAF-induced impairment of the electroretinogram (ERG). Administered alone, 2 x 10(-7) M PAF induced a very marked and rapid drop in the b-wave amplitude. When 75 micrograms/l of cholera toxin was coadministered with PAF in the perfusion solution, no b-wave drop was observed, suggesting that the effect of PAF on retinal function was mediated by GTP-binding protein (G protein). Similarly, a low dose of pertussis toxin (5 micrograms/l) was sufficient to antagonize the action of PAF on the ERG. Our results suggest that the irreversible and deleterious effect of PAF on ERG is mediated by a G protein mechanism, located in the neural retina.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic ResearchSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207