Immunofluorescence confocal laser scanning microscopy and immuno‐electron microscopic identification of keratins in human materno‐foetal interaction zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show here that at least 5 keratin proteins are present in villous trophoblast and the same 5 in extravillous trophoblast. A further 14 tested were undetectable in these tissues. In contrast, 10 of the 19 keratins tested were present in amniotic epithelium. The marking of amniotic epithelium on the one hand, as distinct from villous and extravillous trophoblast on the other, can be achieved using 5 keratins (K4, 6, 13, 14 and 17) with a mixture of positive and negative discrimination that is expected, in combination, to be highly sensitive. All the specific keratins identified in trophoblast were apparently up-regulated on the pathway to extravillous trophoblast. Co-ordinated differentiation at the molecular expression level is indicated by this finding. The relevant keratins are K5, 7, 8, 18 and 19. Specific keratins have been identified that are down-regulated in villous trophoblast in pre-eclamptic pregnancy. This difference between healthy and pre-eclamptic chorionic villous trophoblast keratin expression was statistically significant in 4 out of the 5 keratins. This was not the case for the extravillous trophoblast at the immunofluorescence confocal level but significant differences were obtained using immunogold electron microscopy. We suggest that the villous trophoblast in pre-eclamptic placentae is cytoskeletally weaker with respect to the filaments made from these specific proteins and that this is one reason why, in pre-eclampsia, trophoblast is deported in greater quantity than in healthy placentae.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".