Reviewing the physiological roles of the novel hormone-receptor pair INSL5-RXFP4: a protective energy sensor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no common consensus on the physiological role of insulin-like peptide 5 (INSL5) and its cognate receptor, relaxin family peptide receptor 4 (RXFP4). The experimental data for INSL5-RXFP4 expression and function point to a potential role of the peptide hormone and receptor pair in linking energy availability, homeostasis, and inflammation. In this review, we summarize studies on the INSL5-RXFP4 system and propose that the current findings from diverse experimental settings point broadly to a role as a protective energy sensor (PES). Specifically, we review the evidence that (1) INSL5-RXFP4 could regulate immune response by decreasing the production of proinflammatory cytokines and may be involved in the stress response via the HPA axis; (2) INSL5-RXFP4 may signal through sensory neurons on the vagus nerve, transmitting signals to the CNS; and (3) INSL5-RXFP4 could have local autocrine/paracrine roles within the intestinal tract and immune cells. Further investigation and clarification of these proposed roles of INSL5-RXFP4 may prove a greater physiological relevance for the pair and add to existing evidence of INSL5-RXFP4 role as a PES.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".