MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3022190336 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2006.05.771

P1–393: Quantification of inositol in the brain and CSF of TgCRND8 mice

2006· article· en· W3022190336 on OpenAlexaff
Daniela Fenili, JoAnne McLaurin

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInositolPhosphatidylinositolChemistryInositol phosphateBiochemistryChromatographyReceptorSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our previous in vitro work found that inositol stereoisomers were able to prevent AÎ fibrillization to varying degrees. The AΖinositol interaction resulted in small AÎ42 aggregates but only decreased the kinetics of AÎ40 assembly (McLaurin et al, 2000, JBC). Furthermore, the effective isomers were able to disaggregate preformed AÎ fibres. Inositol is a simple polyol with eight naturally occurring stereoisomers and has been shown to be elevated in AD brain. Given these findings, we investigated whether inositol isomers could cross the blood–brain barrier and subsequently increase the steady–state brain inositol levels. 1. To determine whether the concentration of inositol is altered in the brain after peripheral administration. We hypothesize that the peripheral administration of inositol stereoisomers will result in an increased concentration of these compounds in the cerebral spinal fluid and the brain. 2. Determine whether this results in increased incorporation into phosphoinositides or the phosphatidylinositol family of lipids. To test this hypothesis, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry was used to measure inositol levels in the brain and the cerebral spinal fluid after oral dose administration. To increase the volatility and thermal stability of these compounds and to allow for proper peak separation the hydroxyl groups of inositol were derivatized with acetyl groups (adapted from Shetty Hu et al, 1995, Anal Biochem 224:279–285). We found improved quantification of inositol by monitoring mass ion 168. Inositol levels in phosphatidylinositol lipids and phosphoinositides were quantified by inositol isolation using thin layer chromatography and acid hydrolysis (Kersting et al, 2003, J Eukaryot Microbiol) followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Peripherally administered inositols showed a rapid increase in plasma inositol levels as monitored by radioactively labeled inositol compounds. Continuous administration of some inositols increased concentrations in both brain and CSF. The increase in inositol levels did not alter phosphoinositide levels nor incorporation of peripherally administered inositol into phosphatidylinositol family of lipids. Dose response increases were observed for the most effective inositol isomers. These results show that peripheral administration dose dependently increases brain steady state inositol levels.Molecular Mechanisms of Neurodegeneration Others

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→