MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093234098 · doi:10.1096/fj.03-0040fje

Coordinated functions of Akt/PKB and ETS1 in tubule formation

2003· article· en· W2093234098 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kim R. Lavenburg, J. Simon Ivey, Tien Hsu, Robin C. Muise‐Helmericks

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesAbney FoundationNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteMedical University of South CarolinaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsProtein kinase BCell biologyPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayAKT1PhosphorylationBiologyKinaseTranscription factorMotilitySignal transductionGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the inter-relationship between two downstream effectors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), the serine threonine kinase Akt (also known as protein kinase B) and the transcription factor ETS1, during tubulogenesis. Human endothelial cell culture and the in vivo Drosophila tracheal systems are employed in comparative analysis. We show that VEGF stimulates the expression of ETS1 through a phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt-dependent pathway in primary endothelial cells. Activation of Akt results in vessel formation in vitro, a process that is blocked by expression of antisense ETS1. The functional relationship between ETS and Akt was then tested in the homologous tubular system in Drosophila. Contrary to expectation, ETS1 and Akt did not form a linear positive regulatory pathway in vivo. Instead, genetic analyses suggest that the Drosophila ETS1 homologue Pointed is required for cell motility per se while Drosophila Akt (Dakt1) is responsible for organized and restricted cell movement that is essential for tubule formation. Taken together, our results show that ETS1 and Akt control different aspects of cell motility that are integrated in the precise regulation of vascular tubule formation.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations31
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207