The instructive role of metanephric mesenchyme in ureteric bud patterning, sculpting, and maturation and its potential ability to buffer ureteric bud branching defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney organogenesis depends on reciprocal interactions between the ureteric bud (UB) and the metanephric mesenchyme (MM) to form the UB-derived collecting system and MM-derived nephron. With the advent of in vitro systems, it is clear that UB branching can occur independently of MM contact; however, little has been done to detail the role of MM cellular contact in this process. Here, a model system in which the cultured isolated UB is recombined with uninduced MM is used to isolate the effects of the MM progenitor tissue on the development and maturation of the collecting system. By morphometrics, we demonstrate that cellular contact with the MM is required for vectorial elongation of stalks and tapering of luminal caliber of UB-derived tubules. Expression analysis of developmentally significant genes indicates the cocultured tissue is most similar to an embryonic day 19 (E19) kidney. The likely major contributor to this is the functional maturation of the collecting duct and proximal nephron segments in the UB-induced MM, as measured by quantitative PCR, of the collecting duct-specific arginine vasopressin receptor and the nephron tubule segment-specific organic anion transporter OAT1, Na-P(i) type 2 cotransporter, and Tamm-Horsfall protein gene expressions. However, expression of aquaporin-2 is upregulated similarly in isolated UB and cocultured tissue, suggesting that some aspects of functional maturation can occur independently of MM cellular contact. In addition to its sculpting effects, the MM normalized a "branchless" UB morphology induced by FGF7 or heregulin in isolated UB culture. The morphological changes induced by the MM were accompanied by a reassignment of GFRalpha1 (a receptor for GDNF) to tips. Such "quality control" by the MM of UB morphology may provide resiliency to the branching program. This may help to explain a number of knockout phenotypes in which branching and/or cystic defects are less impressive than expected. A second hit in the MM may thus be necessary to make these defects fully apparent.
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".