MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067196589 · doi:10.1016/s0008-6363(00)00038-9

Altered expression of natriuretic peptide receptors in proANP gene disrupted mice

2000· article· en· W2067196589 on OpenAlexaff
N Vera

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsReceptorNatriuretic peptideInternal medicineEndocrinologyAtrial natriuretic peptideNPR2NPR1GeneBiologyMedicineHeart failureGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) family is a complex system consisting of at least three polypeptides and at least three types of receptor. Each peptide interacts with different types of receptor at varying degrees of affinity. To determine if natriuretic peptide levels influence natriuretic peptide receptor expression and regulation, we examined the expression of guanylyl cyclase linked GC-A, GC-B and C-receptor in the lungs of mice with a mutation that inactivates the ANP gene (Nppa). METHODS: The mRNA level of GC-A, GC-B and C-receptor in the lung were studied by ribonuclease protection assays (RPA). RESULTS: Results of RPA showed that although the mRNA level of GC-A and GC-B of heterozygous ANP+/- was not different from wild type ANP+/+ mice, they were significantly higher in the homozygous mutant ANP-/- mice. In addition, C-receptor mRNA level in ANP+/- and ANP-/- was significantly lower than ANP+/+ mice. The C-receptor results were confirmed by receptor binding assays and affinity cross-linking studies. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together these data suggest that permanent removal of ANP from the natriuretic peptide system results in an up-regulation of GC-A and GC-B, and a corresponding down-regulation of C-receptor in the lung of proANP gene disrupted mice. We postulated that changes in the natriuretic peptide receptor population may result in chronic hypertension and cardiac hypertrophy in the ANP-/- mice.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular ResearchSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207