MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137568849 · doi:10.1084/jem.20090866

GM-CSF regulates intimal cell proliferation in nascent atherosclerotic lesions

2009· article· en· W2137568849 on OpenAlexaff
Su-Ning Zhu, Mian Chen, Jenny Jongstra‐Bilen, Myron I. Cybulsky

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Experimental Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune cells in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell growthMonocyteIntimal hyperplasiaCD11cBiologyCell biologyGranulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factorCellMacrophageImmunologyPathologyCytokineMedicineEndocrinologyPhenotypeIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The contribution of intimal cell proliferation to the formation of early atherosclerotic lesions is poorly understood. We combined 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine pulse labeling with sensitive en face immunoconfocal microscopy analysis, and quantified intimal cell proliferation and Ly-6C(high) monocyte recruitment in low density lipoprotein receptor-null mice. Cell proliferation begins in nascent lesions preferentially at their periphery, and proliferating cells accumulate in lesions over time. Although intimal cell proliferation increases in parallel to monocyte recruitment as lesions grow, proliferation continues when monocyte recruitment is inhibited. The majority of proliferating intimal cells are dendritic cells expressing CD11c and major histocompatibility complex class II and 33D1, but not CD11b. Systemic injection of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) markedly increased cell proliferation in early lesions, whereas function-blocking anti-GM-CSF antibody inhibited proliferation. These findings establish GM-CSF as a key regulator of intimal cell proliferation in lesions, and demonstrate that both proliferation and monocyte recruitment contribute to the inception of atherosclerosis.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations164
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Experimental MedicineSame topicImmune cells in cancerFrench-language works237,207