MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132979001

Effects of human milk and formula on the transcriptional regulation of cytochrome P450 3A4 in HepG2 cells

2004· dissertation· W7132979001 on OpenAlexaff
Ratheishan Rajesan

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2004
Typedissertation
Language
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsCanadian HeritageLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCYP3A4Pregnane X receptorTransfectionReporter geneTranscriptional regulationCaffeineMessenger RNAGene expression
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caffeine is eliminated nearly 3-fold faster in formula-fed infants. As cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is a major caffeine metabolizer and as its expression is primarily regulated by the human pregnane X receptor (hPXR), we postulate that formula induces CYP3A4 expression through hPXR activation. The human liver-derived cell line, HepG2, was tested for CYP3A4 mRNA expression after incubation with undigested human milk and formula. A reporter construct containing CYP3A4-PXR binding elements were transfected into HepG2 cells and examined for activation by milk. CYP3A4 mRNA was increased 2--3 fold and reporter activity was mildly induced after all milk treatments. hPXR expression plasmid co-transfection modestly augmented reporter activity only with bovine-based formula. These results suggest that CYP3A4 induction by formula does not account for differences in caffeine elimination between breastfed and formula-fed infants. Furthermore, PXR-mediated regulation most likely does not play a major role in the transcriptional induction of CYP3A4 by milk.

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 score0.008

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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.368 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism→French-language works237,207→