MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040561590 · doi:10.1080/08977190701781222

Progranulin is a stress-response factor in fibroblasts subjected to hypoxia and acidosis

2007· article· en· W2040561590 on OpenAlexafffund
Ricardo Romão Guerra, Leonid Kriazhev, Francisco Javier Hernandez‐Blazquez, Andrew Bateman

Bibliographic record

VenueGrowth Factors · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreMcGill University Health Centre
FundersRussian Science FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)AcidosisFight-or-flight responseCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineChemistryOxygenBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth factor progranulin (granulin-epithelin precursor, PC-derived growth factor or acrogranin) regulates proliferation and migration and is implicated in cancer, development, wound repair and neurodegenerative diseases. Under most conditions fibroblasts do not express progranulin in vivo, however its expression is activated following wounding. We hypothesised that progranulin is part of a fibroblast stress response. Fibroblasts in culture were exposed to two physiologically and clinically relevant microenvironmental stresses; hypoxia (1% oxygen) and acidosis, both of which increase progranulin expression. The greatest increases occurred when hypoxia and acidosis were combined. Increased progranulin expression is not a direct response to apoptosis since it occurred under conditions of pH and hypoxia under which cell viability remained high. Low concentrations of progranulin (2 nM) protected fibroblasts from apoptosis induced by extreme acidosis (pH 5.0 and 4.0). We propose that progranulin is part of a fibroblast stress response and is cytoprotective to acidotic stress.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations60
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrowth FactorsSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207