MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Angiopoietin‐1 Enhances Skeletal Muscle Regeneration in Mice

2015· article· en· W2969825940 on OpenAlexaff
Gawiyou Danialou, Mahroo Mofarrahi, Joseph M. McClung, Christopher D. Kontos, Elaine C. Davis, Bassman Tappuni, Nicolay Moroz, Amy Pickett, Laurent Huck, Sharon Harel, Sabah N. A. Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityRoyal Military College Saint-JeanChristie (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyogenesisSkeletal muscleRegeneration (biology)Progenitor cellMyocyteCardiotoxinInternal medicineAngiogenesisEndocrinologyCell biologyBiologyChemistryStem cellMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activation of muscle progenitor cell myogenesis and endothelial cell (EC) angiogenesis (angio‐) is critical for the recovery of skeletal muscle (SM) from injury. Angiopoietin‐1 (Ang‐1) enhances angio‐ and SM satellite cell survival; however, its role in SM regeneration after injury is unknown. We assessed the effects of Ang‐1 on fiber regeneration (FR), myogenesis, and angio‐ in injured SM (tibialis anterior, TA) in mice.TA fiber injury was triggered by cardiotoxin (CTX). Endogenous Ang‐1 mRNA levels immediately decreased in response to CTX then increased over the course of two weeks. Ang‐1 protein was expressed in satellite cells, both in non‐injured and recovering TA. Four days after the initiation of injury, injection of adenoviral Ang‐1 into injured muscles resulted in significant increases in in situ TA contractility, muscle FR, and capillary density. In cultured human skeletal myoblasts, recombinant Ang‐1 protein increased survival, proliferation, migration, and differentiation into myotubes. We conclude that Ang‐1 strongly enhances SM regeneration in response to fiber injury and that this effect is mediated through induction of the myogenesis program in muscle progenitor cells and the angio‐ program in EC.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207