MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of Amelotin‐ and ODAM‐interacting enamel matrix proteins using the yeast two‐hybrid system

2011· article· en· W1600428998 on OpenAlexafffund
James W. Holcroft, Bernhard Ganss

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal Of Oral Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAmelogeninAmeloblastEnamel paintAmelogenesisTooth enamelChemistryYeastAmelogenesis imperfectaCell biologyGeneBiologyBiochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formation of dental enamel is a prototype of functional tissue development through biomineralization. Amelotin (AMTN) is a recently discovered secreted enamel protein predominantly expressed during the maturation stage of enamel formation. It accumulates in a basal lamina-like structure at the interface between ameloblasts and enamel mineral and it co-localizes with another recently described enamel protein, odontogenic ameloblast-associated protein (ODAM). The purpose of this study was to determine whether AMTN and ODAM bind to each other and/or to other well-established enamel matrix proteins. The coding sequences of all enamel proteins were cloned into appropriate vectors of the GAL4-based Matchmaker Gold Yeast Two-Hybrid System. The growth of yeast cells on selective media and color induction were used as indicators for reporter gene expression through protein-protein interactions in combinations of prey and bait constructs. We found that AMTN interacts with itself and with ODAM, but not with amelogenin (AMEL), ameloblastin (AMBN), or enamelin (ENAM). Using ODAM as bait, the interaction with AMTN was confirmed. Furthermore, ODAM was found to bind to itself and to AMBN, as well as weakly to AMEL but not to ENAM. We propose a model where the distinct expression of AMTN and ODAM and their interaction are involved in defining the enamel microstructure at the enamel surface.

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)0.002
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 score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations46
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal Of Oral SciencesSame topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207