MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Activation of glutamate dehydrogenase increases renal ammoniagenesis: implications for the HI/HA syndrome

2009· article· en· W3177187357 on OpenAlexafffund
John T. Brosnan, Jason R. Treberg, Katie A. Greene, Kathy A. Clow, Margaret E. Brosnan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGlutamate dehydrogenaseInternal medicineEndocrinologyGlutamineKidneyChemistryGlutamine synthetaseGlutamate receptorHyperinsulinemiaBiochemistryBiologyAmino acidInsulinMedicineInsulin resistanceReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with gain‐of‐function mutations in Glutamate Dehydrogenase (GDH) display hyperinsulinemia (HI) and hyperammonemia (HA). The HI has been clearly linked to an effect of increased GDH flux on insulin secretion. However, the origin of the HA is uncertain, particularly because hepatic GDH is considered to be close to thermodynamic equilibrium in vivo. We found increased ammonia release into the renal vein of rats infused with β‐2‐aminobicyclo[2.2.1]heptane‐2‐carboxylic acid (BCH), an activator of GDH. BCH infusion had no effect on the hepatic handling of ammonia as portal venous ammonia was effectively removed by the liver. BCH also caused increased ammonia production by isolated rat proximal tubules incubated with glutamine. BCH also increased ammonia production and flux through GDH in isolated rat kidney mitochondria incubated with glutamine. We conclude that activation of renal GDH may be responsible, at least in part, for the HA of the HI/HA Syndrome. (Supported by IGTC and CIHR).

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders→French-language works237,207→