Stanniocalcin-1 secretion and receptor regulation in kidney cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney collecting duct principal cells are the main source of stanniocalcin-1 (STC-1) production and secretion. From there, the hormone targets thick ascending limb and distal convoluted tubule cells, as well as collecting duct cells. More specifically, STC-1 targets their mitochondria to exert putative antiapoptotic effects. Two distal tubule cell lines serve as models of STC-1 production and/or mechanism of action. Madin-Darby canine kidney-1 (MDCK-1) cells mimic collecting duct cells in their synthesis of STC-1 ligand and receptor, whereas inner medullary collecting duct-3 (IMCD-3) cells respond to additions of STC-1 by increasing their respiration rate. In the present study, MDCK cell STC-1 secretion was examined under normal and hypertonic conditions, vectorally, and in response to hormones and signal transduction pathway activators/inhibitors. STC-1 receptor regulation was monitored in both cell lines in response to changing ligand concentration. The results showed that NaCl-induced hypertonicity had concentration-dependent stimulatory effects on STC-1 secretion, as did the PKC activator TPA. Calcium and ionomycin were inhibitory, whereas calcium receptor agonists had no effect. Angiotensin II, aldosterone, atrial natriuretic factor, antidiuretic hormone, and forskolin also had no effects. Moreover, STC-1 secretion exhibited no vectoral preference. STC-1 receptors were insensitive to homologous downregulation in both cell lines. In contrast, they were upregulated when STC-1 secretion was inhibited by calcium. The findings suggest that hypertonicity-induced STC-1 secretion is regulated through PKC activation and that high intracellular calcium levels are a potent inhibitor of release. More intriguingly, the results suggest that the receptor may not accompany STC-1 in its passage to the mitochondria.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".