MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160766023 · doi:10.1194/jlr.r700017-jlr200

The emerging role of group VI calcium-independent phospholipase A2 in releasing docosahexaenoic acid from brain phospholipids

2008· review· en· W2160766023 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua T. Green, Sarah Orr, Richard P. Bazinet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lipid Research · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocosahexaenoic acidPhospholipase A2PhospholipaseBiochemistrySecond messenger systemPhospholipase CLipid signalingBiologyNeurotransmissionCalciumEnzymeChemistryFatty acidReceptorPolyunsaturated fatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain phospholipids are highly enriched in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA; 22:6n-3). Recent advances indicate that 22:6n-3 is released from brain phospholipids via the action of phospholipase A2 (PLA2) in response to several stimuli, including neurotransmission, where it then acts as a secondary messenger. Furthermore, it is now known that released 22:6n-3 is a substrate for several oxygenation enzymes whose products are potent signaling molecules. One emerging candidate PLA2 involved in the release of 22:6n-3 from brain phospholipids is the group VI calcium-independent phospholipase A2 (iPLA2). After a brief review of brain 22:6n-3 metabolism, cell culture and rodent studies facilitating the hypothesis that group VI iPLA2 releases 22:6n-3 from brain phospholipids are discussed. The identification of PLA2s involved in cleaving 22:6n-3 from brain phospholipids could lead to the development of novel therapeutics for brain disorders in which 22:6n-3 signaling is disordered.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations124
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lipid ResearchSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207