Xenografting restores spermatogenesis to cryptorchid testicular tissue but does not rescue the phenotype of idiopathic testicular degeneration in the horse (Equus caballus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spermatogenesis from many mammalian species occurs in fragments of normal testis tissue xenografted to mice. Here we apply xenografting to the study of testicular pathology. Using the horse model, we investigated whether exposure to a permissive extratesticular environment in the mouse host would rescue spermatogenesis in cryptorchid testicular tissue or in tissue affected by idiopathic testicular degeneration (ITD). In cryptorchid tissue, where the extratesticular environment is abnormal, xenografting induced spermatogenesis up to meiosis in a subpopulation of seminiferous tubules. Thus, spermatogonia survive and partially retain their potential to differentiate in cryptorchid horse testes. In contrast, the primary defect in equine ITD is hypothesised to be tissue autologous. In support of this, xenografting did not restore spermatogenesis to tissue affected by ITD, thus confirming that the testis itself is primarily diseased. This outcome was not affected by supplementation of exogenous gonadotropins to the mouse host or by reconstitution of a normal reproductive regulatory axis supplied by functional porcine testicular xenografts. These studies demonstrate the usefulness of xenografting for the study of testicular pathology.
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 | 0.000 |
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".