MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064060986 · doi:10.1159/000187933

Absence of C-Type Natriuretic Peptide Receptors in Hamster Glomeruli

2008· article· en· W2064060986 on OpenAlexafffund
James Ka-Hay Luk, Eric F.C. Wong, Norman L.M. Wong

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journals · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsHamsterReceptorEndocrinologyInternal medicineNatriuretic peptideNPR2NPR1MesocricetusPeptideAtrial natriuretic peptideBiologyBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution of atrial natriuretic peptide receptor B (ANPR-B) varies between tissues and species. The aim of this study is to determine whether ANPR-B is present in the hamster glomeruli. In vitro C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP)- and atrial natriuretic factor (ANF)-stimulated cGMP accumulation studies were performed in hamster glomeruli. Elevated cGMP accumulations were observed upon ANF addition. No cGMP response was seen with CNP. Competitive receptor-binding experiments were performed with 125I-CNP and 125I-ANF against their respective cold peptides in hamster glomeruli. Although no CNP binding was detected, positive ANF binding was found and two types of ANF receptor were demonstrated. The affinity (Kdl) and maximum binding capacity (Bmaxl) of the high-affinity ANF receptor were 0.014 +/- 0.001 nM and 60.4 +/- 10.2 fmol/mg protein, respectively. Those of the low-affinity receptor (Kd2 and Bmax2) were 45.7 +/- 6.2 nM and 28.3 +/- 6.3 pmol/mg protein, respectively. Similarly, saturation binding experiments also failed to show any CNP receptor binding in hamster glomeruli. This finding suggests that ANPR-B is not present in hamster glomeruli and CNP is not a direct physiological regulator of hamster renal function.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journalsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207