MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082158969 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0703274

Proteinase‐activated receptor‐2 (PAR‐2): regulation of salivary and pancreatic exocrine secretion <i>in vivo</i> in rats and mice

2000· article· en· W2082158969 on OpenAlexaff
Atsufumi Kawabata, Hiroyuki Nishikawa, Ryotaro Kuroda, Kenzo Kawai, Morley D. Hollenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn vivoEndocrinologyInternal medicineSecretionExocrine glandPancreasBiologyAcinusReceptorMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteinase-activated receptor-2 (PAR-2) is expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract including the pancreas, and may be involved in digestive functions. The aim of our study was to evaluate a potential role for PAR-2 in regulating salivary and pancreatic exocrine secretion in vivo. PAR-2-activating peptides (PAR-2-APs), but not selective PAR-1-APs, administered intravenously, increased salivary secretion in the mouse or rat; this effect of the PAR-2-APs was unaffected by atropine, phentolamine, propranolol or indomethacin. Secretion (amylase) by rat parotid gland slices in vitro was also stimulated by PAR-2-APs and trypsin, but not by activation of other PARs. PAR-2-APs, administered to rats in vivo, caused a prompt effect on pancreatic exocrine secretion. PAR-2 mRNA, known to be present in pancreatic tissue, was also detected in parotid tissue. Our results indicate that in addition to a potential role in regulating cardiovascular and respiratory functions, PAR-2 may also play a general role in vivo for the direct regulation of glandular exocrine secretion.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations101
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PharmacologySame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207