MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Brain, Not the Kidney, is the Source of Erythropoietin in Response to Hypoxic Hypoxia

2017· article· en· W4389016999 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melissa A. Allwood, Nadya Romanova, Keith R. Brunt, Jeremy A. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional HospitalUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsErythropoietinHypoxia (environmental)ErythropoiesisMedicineKidneyRegulatorInternal medicineImmunologyPhysiologyEndocrinologyBiologyChemistryOxygenAnemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erythropoietin (EPO), the principle regulator of erythropoiesis, is central to our understanding of tissue hypoxia. For over a century, the kidney has been regarded as the primary site of EPO production. While multiple extra‐renal sources have been identified, their physiological significance remains largely uninvestigated. Further, studies investigating the source of EPO production use severe (non‐survivable) levels of hypoxia, despite that levels encountered in most pathophysiological states are mild to moderate. The assumption being that the response to less severe hypoxic stimuli is linearly scaled. Our objective was to investigate whole‐body EPO production in response to clinically‐relevant levels of hypoxia. We performed a multi‐organ, temporal analysis of EPO expression in response to moderate (F I O 2 = 0.15) and severe (F I O 2 = 0.09) hypoxic hypoxia. Using the Cre‐lox system, we proved that the brain, and not the kidney, was the sole responder to moderate hypoxia and the primary responder to severe. Thus, the erythropoietic response to hypoxia involves multiple tissues in a degree‐ and duration‐dependent manner with the brain as the first and primary site of EPO production. These data identify a critical shift in our understanding of oxygen carrying capacity in hypoxic hypoxia from peripheral to central regulation. Support or Funding Information This work was funded in part by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (JAS; Grant # MOP111159) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (JAS). JAS is also a new investigator with the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario.

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)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicErythropoietin and Anemia TreatmentFrench-language works237,207