MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transforming Growth Factor‐β Regulates Valve Interstitial Cell Growth in Vitro

2011· article· en· W3173256669 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Xi Li, Avrum I. Gotlieb

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDownregulation and upregulationCell growthChemistryCyclin D1Transforming growth factorCell biologyCancer researchCell cycleCellMolecular biologyBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The effect of transforming growth factor beta (TGF‐β) on VIC growth independent of injury is poorly understood. We showed that in the early stages of VIC wound repair TGF‐β promotes VIC proliferation and repair (A. Liu et al. Am J Pathol 2008; 173:1275–1285). In contrast, we found that under normal non‐wound conditions TGF‐β decreases cell number, alters cell morphology, and increases cell adhesion. In this study we set out to investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the latter observations. Materials and Methods SB431542 is a potent inhibitor of the TGF‐β receptor I. Low density cultures were treated with TGF‐β or SB431542 and their respective controls. The extent of retinoblastoma protein (pRb) phosphorylation and expression of cyclin D1, CDK4, and p27 were compared using Western Blotting. Results TGF‐β treatment inhibits VIC proliferation by under‐phosphorylation of p‐Rb at Ser807/811, which could be reversed by receptor signaling inhibition. There is also a concomitant downregulation of cyclin D1/CDK4 and upregulation of their inhibitor, p27. The decrease in cell number caused by exogenous TGF‐β can be abolished by the inhibitor. Conclusion TGF‐β regulates VIC growth in vitro by inhibiting proliferation in low‐density monolayer while stimulating proliferation at the wound edge following injury.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.232
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207