MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regulation of exercise induced endothelial sprout formation by FoxO1/3/4

2013· article· en· W3169953528 on OpenAlexaff
Sammy T. K. Liu, Dara Slopack, Emilie Roudier, Tara L. Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFOXO transcription factor regulation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFOXO1AngiogenesisInternal medicineEndocrinologyChemistryCell biologyBiologyPhosphorylationProtein kinase BMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forkhead Box “O” (FoxO) transcription factors have been shown to negatively regulated the process of capillary growth, but their influence on endothelial sprout initiation is not known. Mice with endothelial cell (EC) directed deletion of FoxO1/3/4 (FoxOΔ) have accelerated angiogenesis in response to repeated bouts of endurance exercise. We hypothesize this occurs due to FoxO regulation of genes such as Delta‐like1 (Dll1) and Tyrosine‐protein kinase receptor (Tek), which are involved in sprout formation and capillary maturation. EC with a deletion of FoxO1/3/4 showed decreases in Dll1 and Tek mRNA by 0.35 and 0.50 fold, respectively. Dll1 expression was significantly down‐regulated in mouse gastrocnemius muscle after 7 and 14 days of treadmill running, coinciding with the period of FoxO down‐regulation and capillary sprouting. In contrast, Tek expression was bi‐phasic, increasing two‐fold in animals trained for 1 and 14 days compared to sedentary counterparts. In FoxOΔ mice, basal Dll1 mRNA was reduced compared to wildtype, and there was no further decrease with training. The up‐regulation of Tek seen after 14 days of exercise was abolished in FoxOΔ animals. Our results indicate that Dll1 and Tek are novel FoxO targets, and their regulation with repeated exercise bouts may assist in the process of sprout formation and subsequent capillary maturation.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicFOXO transcription factor regulationFrench-language works237,207