MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096056021 · doi:10.1073/pnas.221205198

Endostatin regulates branching morphogenesis of renal epithelial cells and ureteric bud

2001· article· en· W2096056021 on OpenAlexafffund
Anil Karihaloo, S. Ananth Karumanchi, Jonathan Barasch, Vivekanand Jha, Christian H. Nickel, Jun Yang, Silviu Grisaru, Kevin T. Bush, Sanjay K. Nigám, Norman D. Rosenblum, Vikas P. Sukhatme

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research Council CanadaMedical Research CouncilKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCell biologyUreteric budMorphogenesisHepatocyte growth factorBiologyEpitheliumEpidermal growth factorCell cultureChemistryKidney developmentBiochemistryEmbryonic stem cellReceptorGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endostatin (ES) inhibits endothelial cell migration and has been found to bind to glypicans (Gpcs) on both endothelial cells and renal epithelial cells. We examined the possibility that ES might regulate epithelial cell morphogenesis. The addition of ES to cultured epithelial cells causes an inhibition of both hepatocyte growth factor- and epidermal growth factor-dependent process formation and migration. In contrast, ES does not inhibit epidermal growth factor-dependent morphogenesis in renal epithelial cells derived from Gpc-3 -/mice, whereas expression of Gpc-1 in these cells reconstitutes ES responsiveness. Gpc-3 -/mice have been shown to display enhanced ureteric bud (UB) branching early in development, and cultured UB cells release ES into the media, suggesting that ES binding to Gpcs may regulate UB branching. The addition of ES inhibits branching of the explanted UB, whereas a neutralizing Ab to ES enhances UB outgrowth and branching. Thus, local expression of ES at the tips of the UB may play a role in the regulation of UB arborization.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations90
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207