MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3022284000 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.639

SAT-402 Investigating Analogues of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH) and PTH-Related Peptide (PTHrP) to Improve Anabolic: Catabolic Response Ratios Using UMR106-01 Osteocytic Cells

2020· article· en· W3022284000 on OpenAlexaff
Oladipo Posi Oladapo, Kim S. Sugamori, Jane Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParathyroid hormoneBone resorptionEndocrinologyInternal medicineAnabolismChemistryRANKLOsteoporosisOsteoclastBone mineralTeriparatideCatabolismOsteocyteSclerostinStimulationOsteoblastReceptorMedicineWnt signaling pathwayBiochemistrySignal transductionCalciumIn vitroActivator (genetics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Osteoporosis, the most common bone disease in humans, is characterised by decreased bone mass and increased fracture risk1. Osteoporosis development is associated with an imbalance of bone resorption and deposition mediated by all three bone cell types; osteoblasts, osteocytes and osteoclasts2. Current treatments for osteoporosis either prevent further bone resorption (Bisphosphonates and anti-RANKL) or increase bone deposition through anabolism (Teriparatide and Abaloparatide)3. The two anabolic treatments are truncated analogues of endogenous peptides; parathyroid hormone (PTH) and parathyroid hormone-related peptide (PTHrP), respectively. Both are administered intermittently, act on PTH1R receptors on osteoblasts and osteocytes leading to an increase in bone mineral density and bone strength. However, both treatments also have side-effects of hypercalcemia and cortical bone porosity caused by osteoclast stimulation. We therefore compared an array of PTH and PTHrP analogues for potential stimulation of catabolic side effects and desired anabolic effects. Screening assays used are UMR106-01 osteocytic cells that have high levels of PTH1R to measure mRNAs involved in anabolic responses (suppression of WNT inhibitors SOST and Dkk1) and catabolic responses (stimulation of RANKL/OPG, IL6). Peptides were also analysed by real-time cellular impedance assays (xCELLigence) to measure unbiased receptor stimulation. xCELLigence assays showed PTH1-34, PTHrP1-34 and Abaloparatide had the highest potencies (3.7 nM,1.4 nM,1.7nM respectively) while Tyr1PTH1-34 and PTH2-34 had significantly decreased potencies (64nM and 130nM), the β-arrestin biased agonist, D-Trp12Tyr34PTH7–34, had no effect. PTH1-34 potently inhibited SOST (IC50 0.29nM), and catabolic genes (RANK/OPG EC50 0.5nM, IL6 EC50 2.5nM). PTHrP1-34 provided higher potencies for anabolic (inhibited SOST IC50 0.08nM) and catabolic (RANKL/OPG EC50 0.3nM, IL6 EC50 1nM) genes. Altering the first amino acid to Tyrosine; Tyr1PTH1-34 caused potent anabolic responses (SOST IC50 0.97nM) yet showed decreased potency for catabolic responses (RANKL/OPG EC50 20nM, IL6 EC50 > 100nM). Removing the first amino acid of PTH to PTH2-34 drastically decreases the effectiveness of the peptide (OPG, SOST and RANKL IC50 – no effect, IL6 EC50 > 100nM). These results indicate the importance of the N-terminal amino acid for PTH affinity and efficacy and suggest that Tyr1PTH1-34 may offer the best combination of bone stimulation without causing hypercalcemia. References 1 A.Gupta, L. March. (2016) Treating osteoporosis, Aust Prescr 2 Chen X, et al. (2018) Osteoblast–osteoclast interactions. Connect. Tissue Res 3 Tu KN, et al. (2018) Osteoporosis: A review of treatment options. P T

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine Society→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→