MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GPER (GPR30): A Nongenomic Receptor (GPCR) for Steroid Hormones with Implications for Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

2016· review· en· W2541674337 on OpenAlexaff
Ross D. Feldman, Lee E. Limbird

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGPERBiologyEstrogen receptorReceptorCell growthSignal transductionCancer researchCell biologyEndocrinologyCancerBreast cancerBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the rapid effects of steroids, such as estrogen and aldosterone, were postulated originally to be nongenomic, it is now appreciated that activation of such signaling pathways via a steroid-acting G protein-coupled receptor, the G protein estrogen receptor (GPER), has important transcription-dependent outcomes in the regulation of cell growth and programmed cell death secondary to GPER-regulated second-messenger pathways. GPER is expressed ubiquitously and has diverse biological effects, including regulation of endocrine, immune, neuronal, and cardiovascular functions. Perhaps the most biologically important consequences of GPER activation are the regulation of cell growth, migration, and apoptotic cell death. These cell growth regulatory effects, important in cancer biology, are also relevant in the regulation of cardiac and vascular hypertrophy and in the response to ischemia. This review provides a summary of relevant findings of the impact of GPER regulation by either estradiol or aldosterone in in vitro model systems and extends those findings to in vivo studies of direct clinical relevance for development of GPER-directed agents for treatment of cancer and cardiovascular diseases associated with cellular proliferation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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

Citations104
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annual Review of Pharmacology and ToxicologySame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207