Expression of multiple forms of clusterin during light-induced retinal degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Clusterin has been associated with active cell death in several different model systems, including animal models of retinal degeneration. Clusterin is also expressed in normal tissues, a finding that leads to the question of how it could then play a cell death-specific role during tissue regression. To address this paradox, we have examined clusterin expression during light-induced retinal damage in rats. METHODS: Normal albino rats were reared in darkness and then exposed to intense visible light to induce retinal degeneration. Clusterin expression was then examined at various times after light treatment. Standard molecular techniques including Northern analysis, immunohistochemistry, and Western analysis were employed. RESULTS: Northern analysis established that the largest increase in clusterin expression occurs after a decrease in interphotoreceptor retinoid binding protein, IRBP, expression (an indication of a photoreceptor cell dysfunction) and after an increase in heme oxygenase 1, HO-1, expression (an oxidative stress inducible gene), suggesting that induction of clusterin expression is an oxidative stress response. Immuno-histochemical analysis with two different clusterin-specific antibodies, anti(SGP-2) and anti(301), localized distinct forms of clusterin to Müller cells and degenerating photo-receptor cells. Western analysis demonstrated degeneration associated isoforms of clusterin in light treated retina that are not present in normal retina. CONCLUSION: Clusterin over-expression is characteristic of a retinal degeneration phenotype and we propose that clusterin action may be defined by the nature in which it is modified. We hypothesize that alternate processing leads to retinal degeneration-specific forms of the protein (65, 61, and 50 kDa) that are not present in normal retina.
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".