MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049662277 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111370

Expression of CNPY2 in Mouse Tissues: Quantification and Localization

2014· article· en· W2049662277 on OpenAlexafffund
Kota Hatta, Jian Guo, Ana Lüdke, Sanjiv Dhingra, Kaustabh Singh, Mingli Huang, Richard D. Weisel, Ren‐Ke Li

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFibroblast Growth Factor Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyImmunohistochemistryCell typeProtein subcellular localization predictionMessenger RNAMyocyteSkeletal muscleMolecular biologyCellGeneImmunologyAnatomyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canopy FGF signaling regulator 2 (CNPY2) is a FGF21-modulated protein containing a saposin B-type domain. In vitro studies have shown CNPY2 is able to enhance neurite outgrowth in neurons and stabilize the expression of low density lipoprotein receptor in macrophages and hepatocytes. However, no in vivo data are available on the normal expression of CNPY2 and information is lacking on which cell types express this protein in tissues. To address this, the present study examined CNPY2 expression at the mRNA and protein levels. Quantitative PCR and ELISA examination of mouse tissues showed that CNPY2 varies between organs, with the highest expression in the heart, lung and liver. Immunohistochemistry detected CNPY2 in a variety of cell types including skeletal, cardiac and smooth muscle myocytes, endothelial cells and epithelial cells. CNPY2 was also detectable in mouse blood and human and mouse uteri. These data demonstrate CNPY2 is widely distributed in tissues and suggest the protein has biological functions that have yet to be identified. Using these new observations we discuss possible functions of the protein.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicFibroblast Growth Factor ResearchFrench-language works237,207