MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of interleukin‐33 in sepsis‐induced myocardial dysfunction

2012· article· en· W3173755159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yoonmi Choe, Raymond Kao, Anargyros Xenocostas, Claudio M. Martin, Tao Rui

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicIL-33, ST2, and ILC Pathways
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteLondon Health Sciences CentreCanadian Armed ForcesWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSepsisContractilityMedicineMyocyteMatrix metalloproteinaseInternal medicineCytokineCardiac myocyteExtracellular matrixInterleukinIn vivoEndocrinologyImmunologyBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The disruption of myocardial extracellular matrix (ECM) protein has been implicated in myocardial dysfunction during sepsis. However, the underlying mechanism(s) are not clear. Interleukin‐ 33 (IL‐33) is a cytokine which can regulate collagen synthesis in various cardiac pathologies. The purpose of the present study is to test whether IL‐33 contributes to the sepsis‐induced myocardial dysfunction through regulation of matrix metalloprotease‐9 (MMP‐ 9). Methods In vivo, feces‐induced peritonitis (FIP) in mice and in vitro LPS treatments to isolated cardiomyocytes were used in the study. Results In mice with FIP, myocardial IL‐33 and MMP‐9 expression were increased and myocardial contractility was decreased. Myocardial function in mice with FIP was improved when the mice were treated with soluble ST2 (sST2), a decoy receptor of IL‐33. The in vitro, expression of IL‐33 and MMP‐9 in cardiomyocytes treated with LPS was increased. Addition of sST2 prevented the increase in MMP‐9 expression in LPS treated myocytes. Conclusion Our results indicate IL‐33 plays an important role in mediating sepsis‐induced myocardial dysfunction by regulation of myocyte MMP‐9 expression. (Supported by the Department of National Defense, Canadian Forces Medical Group)

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)0.001
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicIL-33, ST2, and ILC PathwaysFrench-language works237,207