Physiological levels of Stat5 DNA binding activity and protein in bovine mammary gland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signal transducer and activator of transcription (Stat)5 has been implicated in the signal transduction pathways of several factors that are lactogenic or galactopoeitic in mammary cells, including prolactin, GH, and IGF-I. Data from cell or explant culture support the concept that Stat5 may represent part of a common route by which different extracellular signals converge and are transduced into the cell. There are few data on Stat5 activity and level in vivo, and we set out to determine whether physiological stimuli of milk synthesis, including GH, GH-releasing factor, and milking frequency, would be associated with alterations in Stat5 activity or protein. We measured Stat5 DNA binding activity using electrophoretic mobility shift assay and Stat5 protein by Western blot in bovine mammary tissue obtained by biopsy or slaughter. Stat5 activity was absent in nonlactating, nonpregnant cows and was present in late pregnancy and throughout lactation. Stat5 activity varied considerably among cows at similar stages of lactation. Mammary Stat5 activity and protein were determined in hormone-treated lactating cows and mammary quarters of cows milked at different frequencies. Infusion of GH and GH-releasing factor for 2 mo significantly raised levels of milk production and depressed mammary Stat5 activity without influencing Stat5 protein abundance. Mammary Stat5 was also influenced by milking frequency; once-daily milking reduced milk production, Stat5 activity, and protein abundance compared with twice-daily milking. Analysis of mammary Stat5 in relation to milk protein concentration in pooled data from lactating cows indicated that Stat5 activity was correlated (r = 0.505, P < 0.05) with average milk protein concentration and not related to milk protein yield (P > 0.05). These results show that both Stat5 protein and Stat5 activity are modulated by different physiological signals in vivo and suggest that Stat5 lies within in the zone where signal transduction cascades from a variety of factors are convergent. Further work is required to clarify the role of Stat5 in relation to other factors in regulation of milk protein gene expression.
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 | 0.001 | 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".