MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of gender‐specific cardiac hypertrophy: role of the nitric oxide synthase system

2010· article· en· W2288425259 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philip G. Wong, E Brander, M. Yat Tse, D. Armstrong, Stephen C. Pang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Fibrosis and Remodeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial natriuretic peptideInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnosNitric oxide synthaseEstrogenDownregulation and upregulationNitric oxideEndothelial NOSMedicineEstrous cycleNatriuretic peptideBiologyHeart failureGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Gender‐specific differences in hormonal regulation may influence susceptibility to cardiac hypertrophy (CH). The nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and natriuretic peptide (NP) systems are homeostatic regulators of blood pressure; ablation of either system increases predisposition to hypertension and CH. Objective To elucidate how the NOS and NP systems work in concert, as well as the impact of estrogen on these systems using the atrial natriuretic peptide gene‐disrupted (ANP −/− ) mouse model. Methods At 13–16 weeks, female ANP +/+ and ANP −/− mice were euthanized during either the estrus (high estrogen) or proestrus (low estrogen) phases of their estrus cycle. Organs were harvested and left ventricle tissue gene expression of NOS system components were assessed using real‐time quantitative RT‐PCR. Results Female ANP +/+ at estrus had a decreased expression of iNOS, eNOS, sGCα1 and sGCβ1 as compared to female ANP +/+ at proestrus. Female ANP −/− at estrus had an increased expression of iNOS, eNOS, sGCα1 and sGCβ1 as compared to female ANP −/− at proestrus. Conclusions High estrogen levels led to a downregulation of the NOS system in ANP +/+ mice, and an upregulation of the NOS system in ANP −/− mice. Whether alteration in NOS system gene expression is a result of hypertension or reduction in circulating ANP levels remains to be determined. (Support from the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario) Grant Funding Source : Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario

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)0.001
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCardiac Fibrosis and RemodelingFrench-language works237,207