MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of Maternal Protein Restriction on the Surfactant System during Early Postnatal Life

2018· article· en· W3175146567 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Khazaee, Lynda McCaig, John S. Huang, Daniel B. Hardy, Cory Yamashita, Ruud A. W. Veldhuizen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary surfactantOffspringLungPhospholipidIntrauterine growth restrictionInternal medicineEndocrinologyMedicineAndrologyPhysiologyBiologyGestationPregnancyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Intra‐uterine growth restriction (IUGR) is defined by a low birth weight and contributes to a variety of adult‐onset diseases with different severities between males and females. There is some evidence for structural and functional changes to the lung during the post‐natal period. However, the specific changes over time and the effects of IUGR on the pulmonary surfactant system are not fully elucidated. Pulmonary surfactant is critical for normal respiration, it is a lipid‐protein mixture which coats the inside of the lung and maintains the lungs' ability to expand easily during respiration. Therefore, in this study we investigated the effects of IUGR on the surfactant system and lung function during early postnatal life. It was hypothesized that IUGR leads to lung dysfunction through alterations of the pulmonary surfactant system. Materials and Methods IUGR was induced in a pregnant rat model via a low protein diet. Briefly, pregnant rats were randomized to a control 20% or a low 8% protein diet. Rats at days 1, 7 and 21 were euthanized, and were either lavaged immediately (day 1) or were analyzed for lung compliance and elastance using a FlexiVent followed by lung lavage (day 7 and 21). Lavage was processed to obtain surfactant which was analyzed via phospholipid‐phosphorus measurements. Results Weights were significantly lower in IUGR offspring in all age groups compared to control offspring. Surfactant analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in the amount of phospholipid surfactant of IUGR female offspring compared to control female offspring at day 1 ( p <0.01). Also, the surfactant phospholipid content at birth (day 1) for both control and IUGR males and females was significantly higher compared to animals at day 7 and 21 ( p <0.01). The results showed that lung compliance in 21‐day female IUGRs (but not male IUGRs) was significantly lower compared to female controls ( p <0.01), while elastance was significantly higher for this group compare to female controls ( p <0.01). Day 7 male and female offspring showed no difference for compliance and elastance compare to the control groups. Discussion and Conclusion IUGR resulted in alterations in surfactant content at day 1 and lung compliance at day 21 in IUGR females compared to control females. This shows that IUGR alters the lung function, and the effect was different between males and females. No changes in the extracellular surfactant content in 21‐day female IUGRs suggests that the lower lung compliance is potentially the result of alterations happened to surfactant biophysical properties under IUGR. These potential alterations will be investigated by assessing the reducing surface tension ability of the surfactant. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 score0.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→