Clock‐dependent and independent transcriptional control of the two isoforms from the mouse <i>Rorγ</i>gene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence indicate that molecular mechanisms generating circadian rhythms display some degree of tissue-specificity. More specifically, distinct patterns of expression for nuclear receptors of the ROR family indicate that the transcriptional control of the clock gene Bmal1 differs among tissues. This study aims to investigate the expression of Rorgammaisoforms (Rorgamma and Rorgammat) and characterize the molecular mechanisms underlying their tissue-specific expression. The expression of Rorgamma isoforms was assessed in mouse liver, muscle, thymus and testis throughout 24 h using quantitative RT-PCR. Although the expression of Rorgamma was rhythmic in the liver and thymus, it was constitutively expressed in muscle and testis. In contrast, the expression of Rorgammat was constitutive in all four tissues. Furthermore, rhythmic expression of Rorgamma was impaired in Clock mutant mice whereas the mutation had no effect on Rorgammat expression. In line with these findings, luciferase assays revealed that transcription of the Rorgamma promoter is clock-controlled whereas that of Rorgammat promoter is essentially clock-independent. Our results provide insights into the molecular mechanisms that lead to differential expression of Rorgamma and Rorgammat and are suggestive of a framework that might account for tissue-specific circadian regulation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".