Gene Expression in Brown Norway Rat Leydig Cells: Effects of Age and of Age-Related Germ Cell Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a marked reduction in circulating T and a commensurate decrease in Leydig cell function in males during aging. Aging is also accompanied by progressive loss of germ cells, leading to testicular atrophy. However, in aged animals, there is no difference in T production by Leydig cells from nonregressed testes and from regressed testes. We hypothesize that there are changes in Leydig cell gene expression that accompany aging, and that different changes in gene expression result from testicular regression. To test this hypothesis, the expression of stress response genes was compared in Leydig cells isolated from young rat testes, from aged testes that were not regressed, and from aged testes that were regressed, using an array approach. Similar numbers of transcripts (n = 56-63) were detected in Leydig cells isolated from all three groups of rats. Among these, 21 transcripts were increased in Leydig cells of testes from aged nonregressed animals compared with cells from young animals; 23 were increased with subsequent testicular regression. Only 3 of these transcripts were in common. Thus, age and testicular regression affected Leydig cell transcripts in dramatically different ways. Furthermore, none of the transcripts that decreased when comparing Leydig cells of young and aged nonregressed animals were the same as those that decreased when comparing aged nonregressed and aged regressed animals. In individual gene families, the steady state concentrations of transcripts in Leydig cells from aging and aging regressed testes often differed. Thus, there are major differences in the expression of a wide variety of stress response genes in Leydig cells associated with aging and testicular regression.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".