MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The extracellular matrix and transforming growth factor-β1: Tale of a strained relationship

2015· review· en· W232770196 on OpenAlexafffund
Boris Hinz

Bibliographic record

VenueMatrix Biology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsExtracellular matrixCell biologyIntegrinStromal cellTransforming growth factorMatrix (chemical analysis)FibrosisChemistryGrowth factorMatrix metalloproteinaseCellBiologyCancer researchReceptorMedicinePathologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiological tissue repair aims at restoring the mechano-protective properties of the extracellular matrix. Consequently, redundant regulatory mechanisms are in place ensuring that tissue remodeling terminates once matrix homeostasis is re-established. If these mechanisms fail, stromal cells become continuously activated, accumulate excessive amounts of stiff matrix, and fibrosis develops. In this mini-review, I develop the hypothesis that the mechanical state of the extracellular matrix and the pro-fibrotic transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1 cooperate to regulate the remodeling activities of stromal cells. TGF-β1 is stored in the matrix as part of a large latent complex and can be activated by cell contractile force that is transmitted by integrins. Matrix straining and stiffening lower the threshold for TGF-β1 activation by increasing the mechanical resistance to cell pulling. Different elements of this mechanism can be pharmacologically targeted to interrupt the mechanical positive feedback loop of fibrosis, including specific integrins and matrix protein interactions.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations595
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMatrix BiologySame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207