Minireview: Activin Signaling in Gonadotropes: What Does the FOX say… to the SMAD?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The activins were discovered and named based on their abilities to stimulate FSH secretion and FSHβ (Fshb) subunit expression by pituitary gonadotrope cells. According to subsequent in vitro observations, activins also stimulate the transcription of the GnRH receptor (Gnrhr) and the activin antagonist, follistatin (Fst). Thus, not only do activins stimulate FSH directly, they have the potential to regulate both FSH and LH indirectly by modulating gonadotrope sensitivity to hypothalamic GnRH. Moreover, activins may negatively regulate their own actions by stimulating the production of one of their principal antagonists. Here, we describe our current understanding of the mechanisms through which activins regulate Fshb, Gnrhr, and Fst transcription in vitro. The activin signaling molecules SMAD3 and SMAD4 appear to partner with the winged-helix/forkhead transcription factor, forkhead box L2 (FOXL2), to regulate expression of all 3 genes. However, in vivo data paint a different picture. Although conditional deletion of Foxl2 and/or Smad4 in murine gonadotropes produces impairments in FSH synthesis and secretion as well as in pituitary Fst expression, Gnrhr mRNA levels are either unperturbed or increased in these animals. Surprisingly, gonadotrope-specific deletion of Smad3 alone or with Smad2 does not impair FSH production or fertility; however, mice harboring these mutations may express a DNA binding-deficient, but otherwise functional, SMAD3 protein. Collectively, the available data firmly establish roles for FOXL2 and SMAD4 in Fshb and Fst expression in gonadotrope cells, whereas SMAD3's role requires further investigation. Gnrhr expression, in contrast, appears to be FOXL2, SMAD4, and, perhaps, activin independent in vivo.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.011 |
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".