Immunohistochemical localization of elastin, fibrillins and microfibril-associated glycoprotein-1 in the developing periodontal ligament of the rat molar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Elastic system fibers are a major component of the periodontal ligament, but little information is available about their detailed composition or the mechanism of elastogenesis in the developing periodontal ligament. The purpose of this study was to investigate immunolocalization of elastin, fibrillins and microfibril-associated glycoprotein-1 (MAGP-1) in the developing periodontal ligament of the rat molar. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Frozen sections of demineralized as well as non-demineralized periodontal ligament of Wistar rats of various ages from 19 days to 7 weeks were incubated with anti-elastin, anti-fibrillin-1 and -2 and anti-MAGP-1 antibodies followed by peroxidase-conjugated secondary antibodies. After incubation with diaminobenzidine solution, immunoreaction products were observed with a light microscope. RESULTS: In the developing periodontal ligament of 19-day-old rats, fibers immunopositive to elastin were not present, but fibers positively stained for fibrillin-2 and MAGP-1 were widely distributed throughout the ligament. The latter fibers were arranged in the apico-occlusal direction along with blood vessels. In 3-week-old rats, fibers stained for elastin were observed for the first time in the apical region of the ligament. The number and distribution pattern of these elastin-positive fibers was basically the same as those in rats aged 5 and 7 weeks. In contrast, fibrillin-2- and MAGP-1-positive fibers were more extensively distributed in the ligament, and their pattern of distribution was comparable to that of reported oxytalan fibers. Fibrillin-1 was, however, not detected either in demineralized sections or in non-demineralized sections, indicating its absence in periodontal ligament. CONCLUSION: Elastin expressed in the periodontal ligament assembled into elaunin fibers in the vicinity of blood vessels. Both fibrillin-2 and MAGP-1 are structural components not only of the elastin-associated microfibrils but also of elastin-free microfibrils, with possible roles in elastogenesis and in periodontal ligament homeostasis.
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".