MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Targeted Expression of Cyclin D2 Results in Cardiomyocyte DNA Synthesis and Infarct Regression in Transgenic Mice

2004· article· en· W2158170306 on OpenAlexaff
Kishore B.S. Pasumarthi, Hidehiro Nakajima, Hisako O. Nakajima, Mark H. Soonpaa, Loren J. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsCyclinBiologyCyclin DCyclin D1Cell biologyCell cycleCyclin A2Cyclin ACyclin-dependent kinaseCyclin ECyclin BCyclin D2Cyclin D3Molecular biologyCellBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restriction point transit and commitment to a new round of cell division is regulated by the activity of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and its obligate activating partners, the D-type cyclins. In this study, we examined the ability of D-type cyclins to promote cardiomyocyte cell cycle activity. Adult transgenic mice expressing cyclin D1, D2, or D3 under the regulation of the alpha cardiac myosin heavy chain promoter exhibited high rates of cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis under baseline conditions. Cardiac injury in mice expressing cyclin D1 or D3 resulted in cytoplasmic cyclin D accumulation, with a concomitant reduction in the level of cardiomyocyte DNA synthesis. In contrast, cardiac injury in mice expressing cyclin D2 did not alter subcellular cyclin localization. Consequently, cardiomyocyte cell cycle activity persisted in injured hearts expressing cyclin D2, ultimately resulting in infarct regression. These data suggested that modulation of D-type cyclins could be exploited to promote regenerative growth in injured hearts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations343
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation ResearchSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207