MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Nesfatin‐1 does not influence intracellular calcium concentrations in neurons of the nucleus of the solitary tract or the paraventricular nucleus

2013· article· en· W3170755462 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Mimee, Alastair V. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolitary tractNucleusIntracellularChemistryCalcium in biologyElectrophysiologyPatch clampCalciumEndocrinologyInternal medicineNeuronBiophysicsCalcium imagingNeuropeptideNeuroscienceBiologyReceptorBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nesfatin‐1 (nes‐1) is a neuropeptide which exerts potent effects on food intake, cardiovascular parameters, and the stress axis. Immunohistochemical studies have shown expression of nes‐1 in the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS) and paraventricular nucleus (PVN). To date there is minimal data describing the mechanism of action of nes‐1 in the brain. Using whole cell patch clamp recordings, we have previously shown bath applied nes‐1(10 nM) influences the membrane potential of 63% of NTS and 71% of PVN neurons. Here, as a first step in investigating the mechanism of nes‐1 actions, we examined the effect of nes‐1 on intracellular Ca 2+ concentrations ([Ca 2+ ] i ) in dissociated NTS and PVN neurons loaded with the Ca 2+ indicator Fura2‐AM. Bath application of nes‐ 1 at 10 and 100 nM increased [Ca 2+ ] i in 4% ( n =75) and 3% ( n =84) of NTS neurons, respectively, as assessed by a minimum 20% increase in the ratiometric value of [Ca 2+ ] i . Furthermore, 9% ( n =125) of PVN neurons showed an increase in [Ca 2+ ] i in response to 10 nM nes‐1. Our findings show nes‐1 does not influence [Ca 2+ ] i in NTS or PVN neurons. A large discrepancy also exists in the proportion of neurons reported as responsive to nes‐1 in our electrophysiological vs calcium imaging experiments, suggesting studies of nes‐1 effects on [Ca 2+ ] i may not be an appropriate method of evaluating neuronal nes‐1 activation patterns or mechanisms of action. Funding: NSERC, FQRNT, HSFO.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity→French-language works237,207→