MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322388316 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1613999

The Factor VIII Acute Phase Response Requires the Participation of NFκB and C/EBP

2000· article· en· W4322388316 on OpenAlexafffund
Colleen Notley, Shawn Tinlin, Lisa Sawyer, Megan E. Begbie, David Lillicrap

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis and Haemostasis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsTranscription factorBinding siteMolecular biologyAcute-phase proteinLipopolysaccharidePromoterElectrophoretic mobility shift assayBiologyMutationNF-κBChemistryGeneInflammationImmunologyBiochemistryGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Coagulation Factor VIII is an acute phase protein in humans that has recently been shown to be transcriptionally responsive to interleukin-6. In this study, we have demonstrated that the human Factor VIII promoter is activated in cultured hepatocytes exposed to bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Deletion analysis has narrowed the LPS-responsive element of the Factor VIII promoter to a small region which contains two C/EBP binding sites and an adjacent NFκB binding site. Mutation of the downstream C/EBP site reduces LPS-responsiveness by ∼50%, while mutation of the NFκB binding site completely eliminates LPS-responsiveness. While binding of C/EBPβ and NFκB is still observed in gel retardation studies using acute phase nuclear extracts and a probe containing mutations to the downstream C/EBP site, neither NFκB nor C/EBP appear to bind to a probe in which the NFκB site has been mutated. Conservation of this region of the Factor VIII promoter in species which exhibit an increase in Factor VIII levels in response to inflammatory stimuli suggests that these transcription factor binding sites are important for normal regulation of the Factor VIII gene under conditions of stress.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations68
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207