MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Angiopoietin‐1 but not angiopoietin‐2 promotes neutrophil viability: Role of interleukin‐8 and platelet‐activating factor

2011· article· en· W3176216806 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth Dumas, Catherine Martel, Paul‐Eduard Neagoe, Arnaud Bonnefoy, Martin G. Sirois

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsViability assayPlatelet-activating factorAngiopoietinChemistryInterleukin 8Flow cytometryPharmacologyImmunologyInterleukinApoptosisCytokineAndrologyInternal medicineBiologyMedicineVascular endothelial growth factorBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reported that the angiopoietins (Ang1 and Ang2) induce platelet activating factor (PAF) synthesis from endothelial cells and neutrophils. Since PAF can promote neutrophil viability, we addressed whether Ang1 and/or Ang2 could modulate neutrophil survival. Viability was assessed by flow cytometry using apoptotic and necrotic markers. Basal neutrophil viability from 0 to 24 hours post‐isolation decreased from 98% to ≈50%. Treatment with pro‐survival mediators such as interleukin‐8 (IL‐8; 25 nM) and PAF (100 nM) increased neutrophil viability by 22 and 35% (raising it from 56 to 69 and 76%) respectively. Treatment with Ang1 (0.001– 10 nM) increased neutrophil viability by up to 40%, while Ang2 had no effect. Combination of IL‐8 or PAF with Ang1 (10 nM) further increased neutrophil viability by 44 and 67% respectively. We also observed that Ang1, but not Ang2, can promote IL‐8 release and that a pretreatment of the neutrophils with blocking anti‐IL‐8 antibodies inhibited the pro‐survival effect of IL‐8 and Ang1 by 82 and 66% respectively. Pretreatment with a PAF receptor antagonist did abrogate PAF pro‐survival activity, without affecting Ang1‐induced neutrophil viability. Our data are the first one to report Ang1 pro‐survival activity on neutrophils, which is mainly driven through IL‐8 release. This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Quebec.

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 score0.002

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→