ArticlePloS one2013
Kinetic characterization of an intestinal trefoil factor receptor.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structure, Function, and Therapeutic Potential of the Trefoil Factor Family in the Gastrointestinal Tract.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2020Review
- Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) Is Regulated by Food Intake, Improves Glucose Tolerance and Induces Mucinous Metaplasia.PloS one · 2015Article
- Trefoil Factor-3 (TFF3) Stimulates De Novo Angiogenesis in Mammary Carcinoma both Directly and Indirectly via IL-8/CXCR2.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether intestinal epithelial cells have a receptor for intestinal trefoil factor and characterize receptor-ligand binding kinetics.
methodsRadioligand binding assays were performed to characterize the binding kinetics between [(125)I]-labeled ITF and IEC-6, HT-29, Caco2 and HaCaT cells. The K d, Bmax and other kinetic variables describing the interaction between ITF and its potential receptors were determined.
resultsRadioligand binding assays performed at 4 °C showed that the K d value for the association between [(125)I]-ITF and IEC-6, HT-29, and Caco2 cells were 1.99 ± 0.12 × 10(-9) M, 3.89 ± 0.42 × 10(-9) M, and 2.04 ± 0.17 × 10(-9) M, respectively. Bmax values were 1.17 ± 0.04 × 10(11), 3.97 ± 0.29 × 10(11), and 2.03 ± 0.08 × 10(11) sites/cell, respectively. The K i values for the interaction between IEC-6, HT-29, and Caco2 cells and non-labeled ITF were 20.98 ± 0.57 nM, 36.87 ± 3.35 nM, and 21.38 ± 0.93 nM, respectively, and the IC50 values were 25.21 ± 0.39 nM, 40.68 ± 0.27 nM, and 23.61 ± 0.25 nM, respectively. Radioligand binding kinetic results showed the association rate constants (k +1) for IEC-6, HT-29, and Caco2 cells were 0.22 ± 0.04 min(-1), 0.29 ± 0.04 min(-1), and 0.26 ± 0.05 min(-1), respectively, and the dissociation rate constants (k -1) were 0.06 ± 0.02 min(-1), 0.03 ± 0.01 min(-1), and 0.04 ± 0.01 min(-1), respectively. For the HaCaT cells, the K d was 4.86 ± 0.28 × 10(-8) M and B max was 5.81 ± 0.15 × 10(8) sites/cell, the very low specific binding between [(125)I]-ITF and these cells made it impossible to calculate binding kinetic parameters.
conclusionsAn ITF-specific receptor appears to be present on the three types of intestinal epithelial cells (IEC-6, HT-29, and Caco-2), and there may be no ITF receptor on epidermal cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.