MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161496231 · doi:10.1194/jlr.m800263-jlr200

Heterogeneity in the sn-1 carbon chain of platelet-activating factor glycerophospholipids determines pro- or anti-apoptotic signaling in primary neurons

2008· article· en· W2161496231 on OpenAlexaff
Scott D. Ryan, Cory S. Harris, Casey L. Carswell, John E. Baenziger, Steffany A. L. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lipid Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycerophospholipidsPlatelet-activating factorCell biologyChemistrySignal transductionPrimary (astronomy)ApoptosisBiochemistryBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The platelet-activating factor (PAF) family of glycerophospholipids accumulates in damaged brain tissue following injury. Little is known about the role of individual isoforms in regulating neuronal survival. Here, we compared the neurotoxic and neuroprotective activities of 1-O-hexadecyl-2-acetyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (C16-PAF) and 1-O-octadecyl-2-acetyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (C18-PAF) in cerebellar granule neurons. We find that both C16-PAF and C18-PAF cause PAF receptor-independent death but signal through different pathways. C16-PAF activates caspase-7, whereas C18-PAF triggers caspase-independent death in PAF receptor-deficient neurons. We further show that PAF receptor signaling is either pro- or anti-apoptotic, depending upon the identity of the sn-1 fatty acid of the PAF ligand. Activation of the PAF G-protein-coupled receptor (PAFR) by C16-PAF stimulation is anti-apoptotic and inhibits caspase-dependent death. Activation of PAFR by C18-PAF is pro-apoptotic. These results demonstrate the importance of the long-chain sn-1 fatty acid in regulating PAF-induced caspase-dependent apoptosis, caspase-independent neurodegeneration, and neuroprotection in the presence or absence of the PAF receptor.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lipid ResearchSame topicCholesterol and Lipid MetabolismFrench-language works237,207