MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083203504 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0704562

Protease‐activated receptor‐2 (PAR‐2) in the rat gastric mucosa: immunolocalization and facilitation of pepsin/pepsinogen secretion

2002· article· en· W2083203504 on OpenAlexaff
Naoyuki Kawao, Yuriko Sakaguchi, Ai Tagome, Ryotaro Kuroda, Shozo Nishida, Kiyohiro Irimajiri, Hiroyuki Nishikawa, Kenzo Kawai, Morley D. Hollenberg, Atsufumi Kawabata

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPepsinGastric chief cellSecretionInternal medicineEndocrinologyGastric mucosaMucusStomachGastric acidReceptorCapsaicinChemistryAgonistBiologyMedicineBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Agonists of protease-activated receptor-2 (PAR-2) trigger neurally mediated mucus secretion accompanied by mucosal cytoprotection in the stomach. The present study immunolocalized PAR-2 in the rat gastric mucosa and examined if PAR-2 could modulate pepsin/pepsinogen secretion in rats. 2. PAR-2-like immunoreactivity was abundant in the deep regions of gastric mucosa, especially in chief cells. 3. The PAR-2 agonist SLIGRL-NH(2), but not the control peptide LSIGRL-NH(2), administered i.v. repeatedly at 0.3 - 1 micromol kg(-1), four times in total, significantly facilitated gastric pepsin secretion, although a single dose produced no significant effect. 4. The PAR-2-mediated gastric pepsin secretion was resistant to omeprazole, N(G)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) or atropine, and also to ablation of sensory neurons by capsaicin. 5. Our study thus provides novel evidence that PAR-2 is localized in mucosal chief cells and facilitates gastric pepsin secretion in the rats, most probably by a direct mechanism.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations53
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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