Developmental Expression Pattern and DNA-Binding Properties of the Zinc Finger Transcription Factor Krox-26
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of teeth through epithelial-mesenchymal interactions is mediated on a molecular level through the iterative and reciprocal action of secreted growth factors and responsive transcription factors. Although zinc finger transcription factors constitute by far the largest class of transcriptional regulators in mammals, little is known about their specific role in the regulation of tissue formation. The C2H2 zinc finger transcription factor Krox-26 is transiently expressed during organ formation, most prominently at sites of early tooth development and subsequently in secretory stage ameloblasts. The objective of this study was to determine the developmental expression pattern of Krox-26 during mouse embryogenesis and to determine its preferred DNA-binding site. Krox-26 protein expression could be detected in multiple tissues, most prominently in developing craniofacial structures. A target detection assay using recombinant Krox-26 protein identified the sequence CAATG as the preferred Krox-26 DNA-binding site. These results suggest that Krox-26 may regulate the expression of target genes through CCAAT box-related sequences in multiple tissues.
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) | 0.001 | 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".