RPE65 from Cone-dominant Chicken Is a More Efficient Isomerohydrolase Compared with That from Rod-dominant Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cones recover their photosensitivity faster than rods after bleaching. It has been suggested that a higher rate regeneration of 11-cis-retinal, the chromophore for visual pigments, is required for cones to continuously function under bright light conditions. RPE65 is the isomerohydrolase catalyzing a key step in regeneration of 11-cis-retinal. The present study investigated whether RPE65 in a cone-dominant species is more efficient in its enzymatic activity than that from roddominant species. In vitro isomerohydrolase activity assay showed that isomerohydrolase activity in the chicken retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) was 11.7-fold higher than in the bovine RPE, after normalization by RPE65 protein levels. Similar to that of human and bovine, the isomerohydrolase activity in chicken RPE was blocked by two specific inhibitors of lecithin retinal acyltransferase, indicating that chicken RPE65 also uses all-trans-retinyl ester as the direct substrate. To exclude the possibility that the higher isomerohydrolase activity in the chicken RPE could arise from another unknown isomerohydrolase, we expressed chicken and human RPE65 using the adenovirus system in a stable cell line expressing lecithin retinal acyltransferase. Under the same conditions, isomerohydrolase activity of recombinant chicken RPE65 was 7.7-fold higher than that of recombinant human RPE65, after normalization by RPE65 levels. This study demonstrates that RPE65 from the cone-dominant chicken RPE possesses significantly higher specific retinol isomerohydrolase activity, when compared with RPE65 from rod-dominant species, consistent with the faster regeneration rates of visual pigments in cone-dominant retinas.
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".