MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067219278 · doi:10.1096/fj.05-4147com

The <i>C. elegans pvf‐1</i> gene encodes a PDGF/VEGF‐like factor able to bind mammalian VEGF receptors and to induce angiogenesis

2006· article· en· W2067219278 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Tarsitano, Sandro De Falco, Vincenza Colonna, James D. McGhee, M. Graziella Persico

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro
KeywordsPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorAngiogenesisGrowth factorVascular endothelial growth factorBiologyPlatelet-derived growth factorCell biologyReceptorVEGF receptorsFunction (biology)Vascular endothelial growth factor ACancer researchGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Members of the platelet‐derived growth factor/vascular endothelial growth factor (PDGF/ VEGF) family have been implicated in a variety of functions in vertebrates, especially angiogenesis. Here we identify and characterize a PDGF/VEGF‐like factor (named PVF‐1) from the nematode C. elegans . We show that PVF‐1 has biochemical properties similar to vertebrate PDGF/VEGF growth factors. More important, PVF‐1 binds to the human receptors VEGFR‐1 (Flt‐1) and VEGFR‐2 (KDR) and is able to induce angiogenesis in two model systems derived from vertebrates. Our results highlight the widespread evolutionary conservation of this important class of growth factors and raise the possibility that C. elegans can provide a simple experimental system in which to investigate how these factors function.—Tarsitano, M., De Falco, S., Colonna, V., McGhee, J. D., Persico, M. G. The C. elegans pvf‐1 gene encodes a PDGF/VEGF‐like factor able to bind mammalian VEGF receptors and to induce angiogenesis. FASEB J. 20, 227–233 (2006)

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)0.000
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations60
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207