PYY preference is a common characteristic of neuropeptide Y receptors expressed in human, rat, and mouse gastrointestinal epithelia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation describes the relative potencies of four peptide agonists, namely, peptide YY (PYY), [Leu3l,Pro34]PYY (Pro34pYY), neuropeptide Y (NPY), and [Leu31,Pro34]NPY (Pro34NPY), as antisecretory agents in human, rat, and mouse gastrointestinal preparations. The inhibition of agonist responses by the Y1-receptor antagonist BIBP 3226 was also tested in each preparation. An unexpectedly pronounced preference for PYY and Pro34PYY was observed in functional studies of two human epithelial lines stably transfected with the rat Y1 receptor (Y1-7 and C1Y1-6). NPY and Pro34NPY were at least an order of magnitude less effective than PYY in these functional studies but were only marginally less potent in displacement binding studies using membrane preparations of the same clonal lines. The orders of agonist potency obtained in Y1-7 and C1Y1-6 epithelia were compared with those obtained from a single human colonic adenocarcinoma cell line (Colony-6, which constitutively expresses Y1 receptors) and also from mucosal preparations of rat and mouse descending colon. Similar peptide orders of potency were obtained in rat and mouse colonic mucosae and Colony-6 epithelia, all of which exhibited PYY preference (although less pronounced than with Y1-7 and C1Y1-6 epithelia) and significant sensitivity to the Y1 receptor antagonist, BIBP 3226. We have compared the pharmacology of these five mammalian epithelial preparations and provide cautionary evidence against the reliance upon agonist concentration-response relationships alone, in the characterization of NPY receptor types.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".