MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differences in susceptibility to nutrient‐induced cell death between primary and immortalized Leigh Syndrome French Canadian type (LSFC) patient fibroblasts

2012· article· en· W3175618320 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie-Ève Rivard, Yan Burelle, Chantal Bémeur, Louis Villeneuve, Lise Coderre, Christine Des Rosiers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNecrosisLactic acidosisApoptosisProgrammed cell deathInternal medicineBiologyAcidosisMolecular biologyEndocrinologyMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LSFC is a monogenic metabolic disease resulting from a mutation in the leucine‐rich pentatricopeptide repeat‐containing (LRPPRC) gene. It is characterized by cytochrome c oxidase (COX) deficiency and episodes of lactic acidosis leading to death at an early age. Recently, we reported that primary (P) LSFC fibroblasts were more susceptible than controls to necrosis induced by nutrient overload (palmitate 1 mM and lactate 10 mM), an effect associated with a lower [ATP] (FASEB J 2011 25:722.15). In this study, we compared P and immortalized (I) LSFC and control fibroblasts. Under basal conditions, control P and I cells displayed similar characteristics regarding (i) LRPPRC localization (immunocytochemistry) and content (Western) as well as (ii) COX activity. Both these parameters showed the expected decrease in LSFC P and I cells. However, compared to P cells, I cells from both groups had higher citrate synthase activity (~25%) and lower [ATP] (~40%). Accordingly, during nutrient overload, I cells were more susceptible than P cells to both necrosis and apoptosis. While this was observed for control and LSFC cells, LSFC I cells remain more susceptible to necrosis compared to their control counterpart. Collectively, our results highlight differences between P and I cells that ought to be considered for data interpretation and study design. (Supported by: Association de l'acidose lactique and CIHR Emerging Team Grant)

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMitochondrial Function and Pathology→French-language works237,207→