MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066450569 · doi:10.1139/y04-087

Endomorphins, endogenous opioid peptides, induce apoptosis in human leukemia HL-60 cells

2004· article· en· W2066450569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xin Lin, Qiang Chen, Li-ying Xue, MA Xiao-jun, Rui Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFas ligandApoptosisProgrammed cell deathBiologyFas receptorCell biologyEndogenyEndogenous opioidReceptorEndocrinologyOpioidBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opioids play a role in the apoptosis machinery. We studied the induction of apoptosis in endomorphin 1 (EM1) and endomorphin 2 (EM2), 2 newly isolated endogenous mu-opioid receptor agonists. These endomorphins were able to reduce the viability of cultured HL-60 cells. The antiproliferative properties of endomorphins appeared to be attributable to their induction of apoptotic cell death as determined by ultrastructural change, internucleosomal DNA fragmentation, and increased proportion of the subdiploid cell population. To elucidate molecular events in the apoptosis, protein expressions of Bcl-2, Bax, Fas, and FasL were measured by western blotting using specific antibodies in HL-60 cells. The level of Bcl-2 indicated down-regulation, but the Bax, Fas, and FasL expression showed up-regulation as compared with the untreated control cells. These data support the idea that endomorphins induce apoptosis in HL-60 cells through the activation of the Bcl-2-Bax and the Fas-FasL pathway. We suggest that endomorphins may play an important role in the regulation of tumor cell death.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207