MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HMGB1 mediated LPS‐induced myocardial dysfunction in mice

2008· article· en· W976135142 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wu, Min Yang, Claudio Martin, Rui Tao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContractilityMyocyteCardiac myocyteHMGB1Internal medicineEndocrinologyCardiac function curveMedicineIn vivoDiastoleHeart failureBiologyInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanism involved in the endotoxin‐induced myocardial dysfunction is not fully understood. The purpose of the present study was to demonstrate that myocardial dysfunction in endotoxinemia is mediated via an increase in myocyte production of high mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1). In vivo, mouse model of endotoxinemia in mice was induced by i.p. injection of LPS (10 mg/kg) and myocardial function was evaluated 24 hrs later. LPS induced a decrease in myocardial contractility (end‐systolic and end‐diastolic volume relation). The decrease in myocardial contractility was diminished when the mice were received either a HMGB1 antagonist (A‐box) or an inhibitor of HMGB1 (glycyrrhizic acid). Expression of myocardial HMGB1 was increased in the heart of mice treated with LPS (immunoflorescence staining). Further, recombinant HMGB1 (10–20 μg/mouse, i.p.) resulted in a dose dependent decrease in myocardial contractility. To confirm that the source of HMGB1 was the cardiac myocytes in the hearts, isolated cardiac myocytes were exposed to LPS (10 μg/ml). Treatment of cardiac myocytes with LPS increased in intracellular levels of HMGB1 and release HMGB1 by myocytes to the supernatant (Western). Taken together, our study suggests LPS‐induced myocardial dysfunction is a result of increase in myocyte HMGB1. (CIHR MOP 81303).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAdvanced Glycation End Products researchFrench-language works237,207