MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110026472 · doi:10.1095/biolreprod65.4.1164

Influence of Maternal Smoking on Trophoblast Apoptosis Throughout Development: Possible Involvement of Xiap Regulation1

2001· article· en· W2110026472 on OpenAlexaff
Andrée Gruslin, Qing Qiu, Benjamin K. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Reproduction · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXIAPTrophoblastFas ligandApoptosisBiologyTUNEL assayInhibitor of apoptosisDNA fragmentationAndrologyImmunohistochemistryPlacentaPregnancyImmunologyProgrammed cell deathFetusMedicineCaspaseGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maternal smoking is associated with severe perinatal complications and significant placental pathologies with underlying ultrastructural changes. In this study, we examined the influence of maternal smoking on trophoblast apoptosis throughout development and correlated those findings with changes in expression of X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (Xiap) as well as Fas and Fas ligand (FasL). Trophoblast apoptosis was determined by DNA fragmentation and TUNEL. Protein expression was assessed by Western blotting and immunohistochemistry. Maternal smoking was associated with increased trophoblast apoptosis in the first trimester but decreased trophoblast apoptosis near term. Placental Xiap levels decreased significantly throughout development in nonsmokers (P < 0.05) but remained elevated in smokers. Fas and FasL levels did not vary significantly throughout development nor between groups. However, procaspase-3 levels were significantly increased in smokers at term. Our results suggest that maternal smoking has different effects at different stages of trophoblast differentiation and that this is regulated in part through modulations in placental Xiap expression.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of ReproductionSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207