MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149511578 · doi:10.1186/1477-7827-9-5

Expression of angiogenic basic fibroblast growth factor, platelet derived growth factor, thrombospondin-1 and their receptors at the porcine maternal-fetal interface

2011· article· en· W2149511578 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew K. Edwards, M.J. van den Heuvel, Jocelyn M. Wessels, Jonathan LaMarre, B. Anne Croy, Chandrakant Tayade

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Biology and Endocrinology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConceptusBiologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineChorioallantoic membraneThrombospondinFetusPlacentaCD36AngiogenesisAndrologyFibroblast growth factorPlacental growth factorEndometriumGrowth factorBasic fibroblast growth factorPlatelet-derived growth factorReceptorVascular endothelial growth factorPregnancyPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Commercial swine breeds in North America undergo two waves of spontaneous fetal loss; one during peri-attachment and another during mid-gestation. Although an exact mechanism for this loss is not known, deficits in vasculature at the attachment sites appear to be a major cause. We hypothesized that a balance between pro-angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors is needed at the maternal-fetal interface for successful conceptus development. Six selected members of the pro-angiogenic fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) families and anti-angiogenic factor thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) and its receptor CD36 were quantified and localized at the porcine maternal-fetal interface at early and midgestation time points. METHODS: Mesometrial endometrium was collected from non-pregnant gilts (n = 8). Endometrial and chorioallantoic membrane samples were collected from healthy and arresting conceptus attachment sites at gestation day (gd) 20 (n = 8) and gd 50 (n = 8). At gd20 arresting conceptus attachment sites were distinguished by decreased vasculature of the placental membranes and decreased conceptus size. At gd50 arresting conceptuses attachment sites were identified by smaller conceptus length and weight measurements. Quantitative real time PCR was used to determine relative transcript levels of genes of interest, and cellular localization was determined by immunohistochemistry in paraffin embedded endometrial sections. RESULTS: At gd20, endometrial samples from arresting conceptuses had elevated transcripts for bFGF, and PDGF-bb than healthy sites (p < 0.05). At gd50, bFGF, FGFR2, and CD36 were more abundant at arresting than at healthy conceptus attachment sites (p < 0.05). Chorioallantoic membrane from arresting conceptus attachment sites at gd20 had elevated transcripts for bFGF, FGFR1, FGFR2 and CD36 compared with healthy sites (p < 0.05). FGFR2 transcripts were more abundant in chorioallantoic membrane from arresting conceptuses at gd 50 (p < 0.05). Immunohistochemical localization of selected pro- and anti-angiogenic factors and receptors revealed their abundance in the luminal epithelium, uterine glands and perivascular areas of endometrium at gd20 and gd50. CONCLUSIONS: We provide comprehensive analysis of pro and anti-angiogenic factors at the porcine maternal fetal interface during early and mid-pregnancy. At mRNA levels, the majority of pro-angiogenic factors investigated were elevated at the sites of fetal arrest. These observations contrast with our previous findings of decreased Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) family members at arresting sites, and suggest that the bFGF family functions as a compensatory survival mechanism when major angiogenic proteins are decreasing at the sites of fetal arrest.

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 score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Biology and EndocrinologySame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207