MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039026141 · doi:10.1159/000125967

Growth Hormone and Somatostatin Gene Expression in Adult and Aging Rats as Measured by Quantitative in situ Hybridization

2008· article· en· W2039026141 on OpenAlexaff
Maria‐Grazia Martinoli, Johanne Ouellet, Éric Rhéaume, Georges Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineEndocrinologySomatostatinSexual dimorphismIn situ hybridizationBiologyHypothalamusGene expressionPeriventricular nucleusMessenger RNAAgeingHormoneSex characteristicsGeneArcuate nucleusMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have investigated the variations in growth hormone (GH) and somatostatin (SOM) mRNAs in adult, middle-aged and aging rats of both sexes using quantitative in situ hybridization. cDNA probes complementary to GH mRNA and SOM mRNA were used on fixed pituitary and hypothalamic sections, respectively. A clear sexual dimorphism in GH gene expression was observed in all age groups examined, mRNA levels always being higher in males than in females. In male rats, GH mRNA levels reached a maximum at 7 months of age and then dramatically decreased in middle-aged and aging animals. In female animals, the highest expression of GH was observed at 9 months of age followed by a gradual and constant decline during the aging period. SOM mRNA levels in the periventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus also showed a sexual dimorphism in adult rats, being higher in males than females. A gradual decline in SOM mRNA was observed in middle-aged and aging rats of both sexes. These results suggest that middle age and aging are critical periods for the control of GH and SOM gene expression and that the decrease in GH mRNA levels observed during aging is probably not a consequence of an increase of SOM activity.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicGrowth Hormone and Insulin-like Growth FactorsFrench-language works237,207