Comparative Temporospatial Expression Profiling of Murine Amelotin Protein during Amelogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tooth enamel is formed in a typical biomineralization process under the guidance of specific organic components. Amelotin (AMTN) is a recently identified, secreted protein that is transcribed predominantly during the maturation stage of enamel formation, but its protein expression profile throughout amelogenesis has not been described in detail. The main objective of this study was to define the spatiotemporal expression profile of AMTN during tooth development in comparison with other known enamel proteins. A peptide antibody against AMTN was raised in rabbits, affinity purified and used for immunohistochemical analyses on sagittal and transverse paraffin sections of decalcified mouse hemimandibles. The localization of AMTN was compared to that of known enamel proteins amelogenin, ameloblastin, enamelin, odontogenic ameloblast-associated/amyloid in Pindborg tumors and kallikrein 4. Three-dimensional images of AMTN localization in molars at selected ages were reconstructed from serial stained sections, and transmission electron microscopy was used for ultrastructural localization of AMTN. AMTN was detected in ameloblasts of molars in a transient fashion, declining at the time of tooth eruption. Prominent expression in maturation stage ameloblasts of the continuously erupting incisor persisted into adulthood. In contrast, amelogenin, ameloblastin and enamelin were predominantly found during the early secretory stage, while odontogenic ameloblast-associated/amyloid in Pindborg tumors and kallikrein 4 expression in maturation stage ameloblasts paralleled that of AMTN. Secreted AMTN was detected at the interface between ameloblasts and the mineralized enamel. Recombinant AMTN protein did not mediate cell attachment in vitro. These results suggest a primary role for AMTN in the late stages of enamel mineralization.
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".