Expression of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-ll and IGF-Binding Protein-1 mRNAs in Term Rhesus Monkey Placenta: Comparison with Human Placenta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patterns of expression insulin-like growth factor-II (IGF-II) and IGF-binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1) mRNAs were compared between term human and rhesus monkey placenta using in situ hybridization histochemistry. Since IGFs and IGFBPs are paracrine factors, the identification of the sites of synthesis of the IGFs and their binding proteins indicate the potential sites of biological action. In both species, IGF-II mRNA was found in highest abundance in the extravillous cytotrophoblasts. The major difference was observed in placental villi. In the human placenta, IGF-II mRNA was expressed in the chorionic mesoderm of the placental villi, whereas, in the rhesus placenta, it was expressed in the syncytiotrophoblasts and not in the chorionic mesoderm. In both species, IGFBP-1 mRNA was expressed only in the decidua. Therefore, the pattern of expression of IGFBP-1 mRNA in the maternal decidua is similar between rhesus monkey and human placenta, but that of IGF-II mRNA in the fetal placental villi is different. These data suggest that the IGF-II-IGFBP-1 interaction in the paracrine regulation of placental growth and/or function in the rhesus monkey and human placentae may have similarities and differences.
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) | 0.002 | 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".