Relaxin Family Peptides and Their Receptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are seven relaxin family peptides that are all structurally related to insulin. Relaxin has many roles in female and male reproduction, as a neuropeptide in the central nervous system, as a vasodilator and cardiac stimulant in the cardiovascular system, and as an antifibrotic agent. Insulin-like peptide-3 (INSL3) has clearly defined specialist roles in male and female reproduction, relaxin-3 is primarily a neuropeptide involved in stress and metabolic control, and INSL5 is widely distributed particularly in the gastrointestinal tract. Although they are structurally related to insulin, the relaxin family peptides produce their physiological effects by activating a group of four G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), relaxin family peptide receptors 1-4 (RXFP1-4). Relaxin and INSL3 are the cognate ligands for RXFP1 and RXFP2, respectively, that are leucine-rich repeat containing GPCRs. RXFP1 activates a wide spectrum of signaling pathways to generate second messengers that include cAMP and nitric oxide, whereas RXFP2 activates a subset of these pathways. Relaxin-3 and INSL5 are the cognate ligands for RXFP3 and RXFP4 that are closely related to small peptide receptors that when activated inhibit cAMP production and activate MAP kinases. Although there are still many unanswered questions regarding the mode of action of relaxin family peptides, it is clear that they have important physiological roles that could be exploited for therapeutic benefit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".