MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cdk5/p35 Expression in the Mouse Ovary

2004· article· en· W118625294 on OpenAlexaff
Kyoung‐Youl Lee, Jesusa L. Rosales, Byung Chul Lee, Seung‐Hyuk Chung, Yoshihiro Fukui, Nam‐Seob Lee, Ki‐Young Lee, Young‐Gil Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules and Cells · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclin-dependent kinase 5CytoplasmCell biologyBiologyOvaryBlotKinaseCorpus luteumOocytePhosphorylationMolecular biologyProtein kinase ACyclin-dependent kinase 2EmbryoEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyclin-dependent kinase 5 (Cdk5) is primarily associated with brain development but it is also implicated in lens and muscle differentiation. We found that Cdk5 is also expressed in mouse ovary, and explored the possibility that it plays a role in that tissue. We show by Western blotting and immunohistochemistry that the known Cdk5 activator, p35, is also present in the mouse ovary. Cdk5 and p35 were detected in oocytes at all stages of the follicle. While Cdk5 was present in the cytoplasm and nucleus of the oocyte, p35 was observed only in the cytoplasm. Both proteins were detected in the cytoplasm of luteinized cells in the corpus luteum. Immunoprecipitation and histone H1 kinase assays revealed that they form an ovarian complex with considerable kinase activity. Phosphorylation assays showed that several ovarian proteins are substrates for Cdk5/p35 in vitro. Together our findings suggest that p35-associated Cdk5 activity plays an important role in the ovary, where it may regulate cell differentiation and apoptosis as it does in the brain.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecules and CellsSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207