MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148479501 · doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00326.2007

Mesenchymal transition in kidney collecting duct epithelial cells

2008· article· en· W2148479501 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Ivanova, Michael J. Butt, Douglas G. Matsell

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRenal and related cancers
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell biologyEpithelial–mesenchymal transitionMesenchymal stem cellBiologyEndosomeVimentinPhosphorylationAquaporin 2Protein kinase BImmunologyTransition (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progressive organ damage due to tissue scarring and fibrosis is a paradigm shared by numerous human diseases including chronic kidney disease. The purpose of this study was to confirm the hypothesis that collecting duct (CD) epithelial cells can undergo mesenchymal transition (EMT) in vitro. The mechanism by which CDs undergo EMT is complex and involves both early and late cellular events. Early events include rapid insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-induced Akt and GSK-3beta phosphorylation, associated with early disruption of E-cadherin-beta-catenin membrane colocalization, with translocation of E-cadherin to endosomes, with translocation of beta-catenin to the nucleus, and with an increase in Snail expression. Transforming growth factor-beta1, on the other hand, induced early activation of Smad3 and its translocation to the nucleus, Erk1/2 phosphorylation, and early disruption of membrane E-cadherin localization. The late consequences of these events included a phenotypic transformation of the cells to a mesenchymal morphology with associated increase in vimentin and alpha-smooth muscle actin protein expression and a decrease in total cellular E-cadherin expression, detectable as early as 24 h after stimulation.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations79
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Renal PhysiologySame topicRenal and related cancersFrench-language works237,207