MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011274505 · doi:10.1111/jfbc.13168

Effect of polysaccharide extract SPSS1 from <i>Apostichopus japonicus</i> spermary on HepG2 cells via iTRAQ‐based proteome analysis

2020· article· en· W3011274505 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Zhang, Shaowei Liu, Laihao Li, Gongming Wang, Fang Liu, Yunping Zhao, Yuexin Jing, Zhenduo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Biochemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEchinoderm biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApostichopus japonicusPolysaccharideFucoseChemistryMonosaccharideSea cucumberSize-exclusion chromatographyGalactoseProteomeBiochemistryChromatographyBiologyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, polysaccharide extract was prepared from Apostichopus japonicus spermary and purified by ion-exchange chromatography and gel filtration chromatography. Two main fractions named SPSS1 and SPSS2 were obtained and analyzed by ultraviolet spectroscopy and mixed with KBr, respectively. Chemical components analysis proved that SPSS1 and SPSS2 were rich in sulfate. Monosaccharide analysis indicated that in addition to the high content of lactose in both kinds of polysaccharides, the highest content of monosaccharide in SPSS1 was galactose, while in SPSS2 it was fucose. Further, the antitumor study of SPSS1 was carried and the results showed that SPSS1 treatment inhibited the proliferation of HepG2 cells. Through the iTRAQ-based proteome analysis, there were 208 differential proteins between control tumor cells and SPSS1 treatment of tumor cells. Compared to control tumor cells, 135 proteins were upregulated and 73 proteins were downregulated in treatment tumor cells. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Our study suggested that polysaccharide from sea cucumbers had the potential to be further developed as antitumor drugs.

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 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food BiochemistrySame topicEchinoderm biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207