MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Proteinase‐activated receptors, PAR1 & PAR2, regulate porcine coronary contractility via tyrosine kinase‐MAPKinase signaling involving a cyclooxygenase (COX)‐1 product

2013· article· en· W3168908334 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mahmoud El‐Daly, Mahmoud Saifeddine, Chris R. Triggle, Morley D. Hollenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMAPK/ERK pathwayProto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase SrcTyrosine kinaseReceptor tyrosine kinaseTransactivationEndocrinologyAngiotensin IIInternal medicineCyclooxygenaseChemistryKinaseSignal transductionReceptorCell biologyMedicineBiologyBiochemistryEnzymeTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective PARs 1 and 2 regulate vascular tension and also trigger both tyrosine kinase (PYK) and MAPKinase signals, in part via EGF receptor (EGFR) transactivation. We hypothesized that PAR‐triggered MAPK and PYK activities regulate porcine coronary artery (PCA) tension via EGFR activation. Methods Contractions of L‐NAME‐treated PCA rings ± functional endothelium stimulated by PAR1/2‐selective activating peptides (PAR‐APs), EGF, angiotensin‐II (AngII) and PGF 2α were monitored in the absence and presence of the signal pathway inhibitors: PP1 (Src kinase), AG1478 (EGFR kinase), U0126 (MAPK), PD98059 (MAPK), and the COX inhibitors, indomethacin (INDO, COX1,2), SC560 (COX1), & NS398 (COX2). Results Endothelium‐independent contractions by PAR1/2‐APs, Ang‐II, and EGF (but not by PGF 2α ) were inhibited by PP1, U0126, & PD98059. AG1478 blocked mainly PAR2‐AP and EGF contractions, Further, PAR‐AP & Ang‐II contractions, blocked by INDO & SC560, were mimicked by arachidonate. In contrast, PGF 2α ‐induced contraction was not affected by any inhibitor used. Conclusions PARs 1 & 2, like AngII, regulate coronary tension via a PYK‐MAPK pathway involving a COX1 metabolite, but by distinct GPCR mechanisms that differentially transactivate the EGFR. Support: CIHR‐Canada, Qatar Foundation NPPR and the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada.

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)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→