MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065293958 · doi:10.1002/jcp.10225

Control of hepatocyte DNA synthesis by intracellular pH and its role in the action of tumor promoters

2003· article· en· W2065293958 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicChemical Reactions and Isotopes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersFlinders University
KeywordsHepatocytePromoterDNA synthesisAntiporterIntracellular pHEpidermal growth factorBiologyMonensinBiochemistryExtracellularMolecular biologyChemistryDNAGene expressionIn vitroReceptorGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanisms of tumor promotion in liver by various xenobiotics of diverse structure are not well understood. However, these tumor promoters share the ability to exert growth-stimulatory effects on hepatocytes. Our laboratory has been utilizing normal rat hepatocytes under defined conditions of primary cultures, to investigate growth-stimulatory actions of liver tumor promoters. We have shown that most, if not all, of the liver tumor promoters tested stimulate hepatocyte DNA synthesis when added in combination with epidermal growth factor (EGF), insulin, and glucocorticoids. In the present study, we sought evidence for the role of the Na(+)/H(+) antiporter and cytoplasmic alkalinization in the direct growth-stimulatory actions of tumor promoters on hepatocytes. Hepatocytes cultured under conditions (bicarbonate-buffered medium) where intracellular pH (pH(i)) was independent of extracellular pH (pH(e)), EGF- and insulin-stimulated rates of DNA synthesis were unaffected by modest changes in pH(e). However, under conditions (HEPES-buffered medium) where pH(i) varied in a linear fashion with pH(e), rates of EGF- and insulin-stimulated DNA synthesis were highly dependent on pH(e). Similarly, 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate (TPA) and alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)-stimulated DNA synthesis were pH(e)-dependent but were stimulatory over different pH(e) ranges, suggesting that these promoters may act by distinct mechanisms. Chemicals that are capable of inducing rapid cytoplasmic alkalinization, ammonium chloride (1 and 15 mM) and monensin (0.5 microM), were found to stimulate hepatocyte DNA synthesis. The role of the Na(+)/H(+) antiport in controlling pH(i) of hepatocytes was demonstrated by artificially acidifying 2',7'-bis(carboxyethyl)-5,6-carboxyfluorescein acetoxymethyl (BCECF)-loaded isolated hepatocytes with 20 mM sodium acetate and the use of specific inhibitors. Amiloride and its analogues inhibited pH(i) recovery from the acid load in a dose dependent manner and the relative potency of these inhibitors paralleled their K(i) values for the Na(+)/H(+) antiport. At concentrations that stimulate hepatocyte DNA synthesis, some liver tumor promoters phenobarbital (PB) and HCH, were found to cause a rapid rise pH(i) in isolated hepatocytes which was sensitive to amiloride and its analogues. Taken together, our data suggest that activation of Na(+)/H(+) antiport activity may be one mechanism whereby some liver tumor promoters stimulate hepatocytes DNA synthesis. This study has implications for the mechanisms of tumor promotion in liver carcinogenesis.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.296 · 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