MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613646296 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02337-4

Obestatin controls skeletal muscle fiber-type determination

2017· article· en· W2613646296 on OpenAlexaff
Icía Santos‐Zas, Tania Cid‐Díaz, Jessica González‐Sánchez, Uxía Gurriarán‐Rodríguez, Carlos Seoane-Mosteiro, Begoña Porteiro, Rubén Nogueiras, Xesús Casabiell, José Luis Relova, Rosalı́a Gallego, Vincent Mouly, Yolanda Pazos, Jesús P. Camiña

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersServicio Gallego de SaludInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIXunta de Galicia
KeywordsObestatinSkeletal muscleEndocrinologyMyocyteMef2Internal medicineCell biologyMyostatinSignal transductionBiologyReceptorMedicineGene expressionBiochemistryEnhancerGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obestatin/GPR39 signaling stimulates skeletal muscle growth and repair by inducing both G-protein-dependent and -independent mechanisms linking the activated GPR39 receptor with distinct sets of accessory and effector proteins. In this work, we describe a new level of activity where obestatin signaling plays a role in the formation, contractile properties and metabolic profile of skeletal muscle through determination of oxidative fiber type. Our data indicate that obestatin regulates Mef2 activity and PGC-1α expression. Both mechanisms result in a shift in muscle metabolism and function. The increase in Mef2 and PGC-1α signaling activates oxidative capacity, whereas Akt/mTOR signaling positively regulates myofiber growth. Taken together, these data indicate that the obestatin signaling acts on muscle fiber-type program in skeletal muscle.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207