MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α ligands inhibit cardiac lipoprotein lipase activity

2001· article· en· W2411757152 on OpenAlexaff
Rogayah Carroll, David L. Severson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLipoprotein lipasePeroxisome proliferator-activated receptorReceptorAdipose tissueEndocrinologyInternal medicinePeroxisomeLipaseBiologyEnzymeBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are ligand-activated transcription factors that regulate gene expression of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) in liver and adipose tissue. We examined the direct effect of PPAR-alpha ligands on LPL catalytic activity in cultured cardiomyocytes from adult rat heart. After overnight culture (16 h), 1 microM Wy-14643 and 10 microM BM-17.0744 decreased total cellular LPL activity to approximately 50% of control with no change in enzyme synthesis or mass; as a consequence, PPAR-alpha activation produced a significant decrease in LPL specific activity (mU/ng LPL protein). Wy-14643 and BM-17.0744 also reduced heparin-releasable LPL activity and mass in the culture medium. Inhibition of LPL activity by Wy-14643 did not reduce the ability of insulin plus dexamethasone to stimulate cellular and heparin-releasable LPL activities. A similar inhibitory effect on cellular and heparin-releasable LPL activity was observed when cardiomyocytes were cultured with 60 microM linoleic acid. In conclusion, two different PPAR-alpha ligands (Wy-14643 and BM-17.0744) inhibited cellular LPL activity in cultured cardiomyocytes by a posttranscriptional and posttranslational mechanism.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

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

Citations29
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated ReceptorsFrench-language works237,207